1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4600 OF2022C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.4602 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4603 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4605 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4606 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4609 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4610 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4611 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4613 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4615 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4735 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4736 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4737 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4738 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4739 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4748 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4754 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4758 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4800 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4804 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4808 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4809 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4810 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4811 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4812 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4813 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4814 OF2022CRIMINAL PETITION No.4815 OF20222 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4600 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.98/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-70), BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B); B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 3 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4602 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.102/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-70) (ANNEXURE B);B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 4 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4603 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: P.K.MAJUMDAR AGED ABOUT78YEARS RESIDING AT226TH CROSS STREET TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.77/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-70) 5 (ANNEXURE B);B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4605 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.100/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-70) (ANNEXURE B); B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 6 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4606 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.95/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-70) BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B); B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 7 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4609 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: P.K.MAJUMDAR AGED ABOUT78YEARS RESIDING AT226TH CROSS STREET TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.89/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-70) BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B);B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 8 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4610 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: P.K.MAJUMDAR AGED ABOUT78YEARS RESIDING AT226TH CROSS STREET TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.86/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-70) BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B);B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 9 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4611 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: P.K.MAJUMDAR AGED ABOUT78YEARS RESIDING AT226TH CROSS STREET TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.80/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-70) BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B);B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 10 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4613 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.92/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-70) BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B); B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 11 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4615 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: P.K.MAJUMDAR AGED ABOUT78YEARS RESIDING AT226TH CROSS STREET TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.83/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-70) BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B);B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 12 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4735 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.91/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-70) BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B); B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 13 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4736 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: P.K.MAJUMDAR AGED ABOUT78YEARS RESIDING AT226TH CROSS STREET TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.79/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-70) BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B);B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 14 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4737 OF2022BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: P.K.MAJUMDAR AGED ABOUT78YEARS RESIDING AT226TH CROSS STREET TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.88/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-70) BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B);B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 15 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4738/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI, PROPRIETRIX, RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS, NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.94/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 16 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4739/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI P.K.MAJUMDAR, AGED ABOUT78YEARS, RESIDING AT22 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.82/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 17 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4748/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY MR.L.G.SATISH MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI P.K.MAJUMDAR, AGED ABOUT78YEARS, RESIDING AT22 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.85/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-70) (ANNEXURE B). ii) CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 18 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4754/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS14H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF A. CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.97/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S319OF CR.P.C1973 19 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4758/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS14H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.101/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 20 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4800/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS14H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI P.K.MAJUMDAR, AGED ABOUT78YEARS, RESIDING AT22 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CR.R.P No.84/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). ii) CONSEQUENTLY, PASS
ORDERS ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S319OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. 21 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4804/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS14H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI P.K.MAJUMDAR, AGED ABOUT78YEARS, RESIDING AT22 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.76/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU ( ANNEXURE B). ii) CONSEQUENTLY, PASS
ORDERS ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S319OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973. 22 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4808/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS14H PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI P.K.MAJUMDAR, AGED ABOUT78YEARS, RESIDING AT22 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.78/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 23 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4809/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.90/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 24 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4810/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI P.K.MAJUMDAR, AGED ABOUT78YEARS, RESIDING AT22 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.87/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 25 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4811/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.103/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 26 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4812/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI P.K.MAJUMDAR, AGED ABOUT78YEARS, RESIDING AT22 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A.SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.81/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 27 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4813/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.99/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 28 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4814/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.96/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B. CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 29 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4815/2022: BETWEEN: MPP TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., No.487/C, 14TH CROSS, 14TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058, REPRESENTED BY L.G.SATISH, MARKETING MANAGER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: RUPA BANERJI PROPRIETRIX RNB DESIGN ARC SYSTEMS NO.22, 6TH CROSS STREET, TRUSTPURAM KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV. A/W SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDERDATED2802.2022 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.93/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B). B.CONSEQUENTLY PASS
ORDERALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S.319 OF CRPC1973 THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON2009.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 30
ORDERThe petitioner in the subject petition calls in question order dated 28-02-2022 passed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.98 of 2021 whereby the learned Sessions Judge upturns the order dated 8-02-2021 passed by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & MACT, Bengaluru allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the CrPC.
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:- The petitioner/complainant claims to be a leading name in the manufacture of sheet metal fabricated products and transformer tanks for overseas and domestic market to meet specific needs of customers and claims to have spread all over the world. The petitioner and one R.N.Banerji and Son entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’ for short) on 2-02-2006, in terms of which R.N.Banerji and Son were appointed as marketing associates of the petitioner and were required to market and install resistant doors – ‘System Schroders’ door and clean room and duct door 31 manufactured by the complainant. It is the claim of the petitioner that in terms of MoU, R.N.Banerji and Son became responsible for marketing, promotion, after service installation etc. Subsequent to signing of MoU, one Mr. Jolly Banerji began placing purchase orders in the name of ‘RNB Design Arc Systems’ (‘RNB’ for short) and due to the long standing business relationship between the petitioner and R.N.Banerji and Son, the petitioner claims to have immediately agreed to the arrangement and continued to make supplies despite the change of name of the concern and claimed that all transactions and correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and Jolly Banerji.
3. It is the further claim of the petitioner that despite the change of name of the proprietary concern Jolly Banerji continued to represent himself as the proprietor of RNB. Since all correspondences happened between Jolly Banerji and the petitioner, the petitioner claims to have bona fide believed that Jolly Banerji was the proprietor of RNB and at no point in time Jolly Banerji disclosed that he was not the proprietor but his wife Rupa 32 Banerji was the proprietrix of RNB and he was only representing Rupa Banerji.
4. The petitioner claims to have supplied metal doors to RNB under various invoices and RNB had acknowledged the receipt of those metal doors. Certain amount became outstanding in terms of invoices. In furtherance of the same, RNB delivered various cheques to the petitioner in discharge of its alleged liability which included a cheque bearing No.165482 dated 17-08-2016 which is the subject matter of the present petition. Since there are 23 connected petitions, the amount and the instrument involved in the transaction would differ; that need not be elaborated, as the issue in the case at hand does not concern the instrument.
5. The cheques having been presented were dishonoured or unpaid by the banker with an endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer”. Pursuant to such endorsement, a notice came to be issued to the proprietary concern and a reply was also given by the RNB, after which, the petitioner in all these cases invoked Section 200 of the CrPC and registered private complaints for offences punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable 33 Instruments Act 1881 (‘the Act’ for short). Cognizance was taken on the offences and the matter was set for trial. It is what happens during the trial that concerns these petitions.
6. At the time when the prosecution witnesses were being examined it comes to the notice of the petitioner that RNB was represented by Mrs. Rupa Banerji as proprietrix in O.S.No.6813 of 2016 and in O.S. No.7825 of 2016 RNB was represented by Jolly Banerji as its proprietor. This generated obfuscation with the petitioner herein and therefore, it filed an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 319 of the CrPC to include Mrs. Rupa Banerji as an accused in the case at hand. The learned Magistrate accepting the application filed by the petitioner passed an order on 8-02-2021 directing Mrs.Rupa Banerji and one P.K.Majumdar to be impleaded as accused along with the accused Company, by allowing the applications filed under Section 142 of the Act and Section 319 of the CrPC.
7. Mrs. Rupa Banerji who was directed to be arrayed has tossed the said order before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal 34 Revision Petition No.98 of 2021. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 28-02-2022 sets aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate permitting arraigning of Mrs. Rupa Banerji as an accused along with P.K.Majumdar. Setting aside of the order of the learned Magistrate is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
8. Heard Sri Nitin Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri Nischal Dev.B.R., for the respondent.
9. The learned counsel representing the petitioner would contend that throughout the business transaction from 2006 till the time there was default in payment in the year 2016 it was Mr. Jolly Banerji alone who was communicating with the petitioner. Therefore, a notice was issued to the proprietorship concern to whom proprietor is immaterial since it is a proprietorship concern which could be either proprietor or proprietrix and the reply is given by the proprietary concern. No where it was indicated that Mr. Jolly Banerji was not the proprietor or Mrs. Rupa Banerji was the proprietrix. It is only during the trial the petitioner comes to know 35 that both Mr.Jolly Banerji and Mrs. Rupa Banerji have claimed themselves to be representing RNB in the aforementioned civil suits filed. It is then, to avoid confusion, an application came to be filed as the proprietorship concern should not run away from the clutches of law on the ground that proper person is not arrayed as accused while the proprietorship concern was already an accused. To buttress his submission the learned counsel would seek to place reliance on several judgments.
10. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent would refute the submissions to contend that the contention of the petitioner is fundamentally flawed, as no notice is issued to Mrs.Rupa Banerji. Mrs. Rupa Banerji has not replied to any of the allegations. Merely because in a suit the petitioner comes across the name of the proprietor being different, now at this point in time, after five years of institution of proceedings, it cannot be permitted to arraign Mrs. Rupa Banerji or Mr.P.K.Majumdar as accused. He would submit that this is contrary to the spirit of Section 319 of the CrPC as in peculiar circumstances it being alien to proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. He 36 would contend that proceedings under Section 138 of the Act is offender centric and not offence centric, unless the offence under the IPC where cognizance is taken qua the offence and not the offender. He would seek to place reliance on several judgments.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for my consideration is: “Whether the application under Section 319 of the CrPC that was allowed by the learned Magistrate in permitting Mrs. Rupa Banerji and Mr. P.K.Majumdar to be arrayed as accused along with the Company and the order of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition in setting aside the said order are tenable in law?.
12. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship of business between the parties is not in dispute. In the year 2006 R.N.Banerji and Son entered into a MoU with the petitioner for generation of business. It is in furtherance of the said 37 business which went on years, cheques were given by the proprietorship concern. A legal notice was caused upon the proprietorship concern on 1-08-2016. The notice was replied by the proprietorship concern on 12-08-2016. A perusal at the notice would indicate that the notice was sent to the proprietorship concern and replied by the proprietorship concern. The narration in the notice or reply thereto would not indicate that on behalf of an individual that the notice is sent or an individual has replied to the said notice. It was to a proprietorship concern and from the proprietorship concern to the petitioner/complainant. Legal proceedings were instituted by the petitioner against the firm invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The proceedings go on before the concerned Court. The reply of an employee of the complainant one Mr.L.G.Satish in response to a question put by the counsel for the accused as to who was the proprietor of RNB, was Mrs. Rupa Banerji. Owing to the said answer in the cross-examination of the complainant witness, an application is filed immediately by the complainant under Section 142(b) of the Act read with Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned 38 Magistrate issued notice to the accused on the said application so filed by the complainant.
13. Challenging the notice issued by the concerned Court, Mrs. Rupa Banerji and Sri P.K.Majumdar knocked the doors of this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.7518 of 2018 and connected cases invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Jolly Banerji also filed criminal petition along with them contending that he is not the signatory to the cheques and, therefore, no proceedings could be initiated against him, as the accused is proprietorship concern and the proprietrix is one Mrs. Rupa Banerji and not Jolly Banerji. This Court, after hearing the matter and noticing the fact that the issue relating to Mr. P.K.Majumdar and Mrs. Rupa Banerji being under consideration before the learned Magistrate in terms of the application, the only relief that was granted was that they should not be insisted for personal appearance and it was observed that the learned Magistrate would endeavour to dispose of the application expeditiously and at any rate within three weeks. The said order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was passed on 27-02-2019, operative portion of which reads as follows:
39. “12. Since the issue relating to Mr. P.K.Majumdar and Mrs. Rupa Banerji is under consideration by the learned Magistrate, by virtue of application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate, for the present, shall not insist on their personal appearance, or at least till said applications are disposed of. However, learned Magistrate shall make all endeavour to dispose of the applications expeditiously and at any rate, within three weeks from the next date of hearing. All pending applications are consigned to records.” Later, the learned Magistrate, on remand, had passed the order on 8-02-2021 allowing the application filed by the complainant and directed that Mrs. Rupa Banerji and Mr. Majumdar to be arrayed as accused along with the accused firm. Mrs. Rupa Banerji calls this in question by filing a revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.98 of 2021. The revisional Court – Court of Sessions, after noticing the facts and the purport of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. upturns the order passed by the learned Magistrate permitting impleadment of Mrs. Rupa Banerji as one of the accused by his order dated 28-02-2022. The reasons rendered by the learned Sessions Judge are found at paragraph 49 of the said order and it reads as follows: “49. But on overall appreciation of the facts and legal position, the said reason assigned by the complainant is not 40 sufficient on many grounds as firstly the accused proprietorship concern is not a company. There is difference between the proprietorship concern and Company. The complainant cannot take shelter under Section 141 of N.I.Act to launch prosecution against accused No.2 and 3. So also, the very important fact is that there is no allegation or explanation in the complaint against the accused No.2 and 3 which is one of the requirements to launch prosecution. Apart from that the complainant cannot bypass the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I.Act. Since there is no compliance of Section 138 of N.I. Act, there is no cause of action to prosecute against accused No.2 and 3. Lastly application is filed under Section 142(b) r/w 473 of Cr.P.C. to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. But, as per Section 142(b) the delay may be condoned on satisfying the Court with the sufficient cause only not making complaint within a prescribed period, but not the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Hence, on all these observation it can be concluded that the trial court has erred in allowing the application. Hence, the order of the trial Court is need to be set aside by allowing the revision petition. Accordingly this point is answered in affirmative.
14. It is the upturn of the order of the learned Magistrate which directed Mrs. Rupa Banerji and Mr. P.K.Majumdar to be arrayed as accused is what drives the complainant to this Court in all these petitions. The issue now to be considered is, whether the order of the learned Magistrate permitting Mrs. Rupa Banerji and Mr. P.K. Majumdar to come on record as accused in the proprietorship concern was tenable in law or the order of the 41 revisional Court upturning the same is sustainable. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.—(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then— (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. gives a right to the prosecution/complainant to seek any other parties to be arrayed as 42 accused in a proceeding, if during the course of evidence if it emerges that those parties will also have to be tried for the offence. But, this power to summon those persons who are not named in the charge sheet or given up in charge sheet in the case at hand while taking cognizance, is an extraordinary power which should be used in extraordinary circumstances. The circumstance in the case at hand is not where the accused are being tried for offences under the IPC. The accused are sought to be tried for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The purpose of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Apex Court in several judgments, a few of them are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I deem it appropriate to notice the ones that are germane to the facts of the case at hand. A Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1 has delineated the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are the issues that fell for consideration before the Apex Court and they read as follows: “6. On the consideration of the submissions raised and in view of what has been noted above, the following questions are to be answered by this Bench:
1. (2014)3 SCC9243 6.1. (i) What is the stage at which power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised?. 6.2. (ii) Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) CrPC could only mean evidence tested by cross- examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?. 6.3. (iii) Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) CrPC has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?. 6.4. (iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC to arraign an accused?. Whether the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted?. 6.5. (v) Does the power under Section 319 CrPC extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?.
7. In this reference what we are primarily concerned with, is the stage at which such powers can be invoked and, secondly, the material on the basis whereof the invoking of such powers can be justified. To add as a corollary to the same, thirdly, the manner in which such power has to be exercised, also has to be considered.” Answering the said issues, the Apex Court holds as follows: “55. Accordingly, we hold that the court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence and also in exceptional circumstances as explained hereinabove. 44
56. There is yet another set of provisions which form part of inquiry relevant for the purposes of Section 319 CrPC i.e. provisions of Sections 200, 201, 202, etc. CrPC applicable in the case of complaint cases. As has been discussed herein, evidence means evidence adduced before the court. Complaint case is a distinct category of criminal trial where some sort of evidence in the strict legal sense of Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “the Evidence Act”) comes before the court. There does not seem to be any restriction in the provisions of Section 319 CrPC so as to preclude such evidence as coming before the court in complaint cases even before charges have been framed or the process has been issued. But at that stage as there is no accused before the court, such evidence can be used only to corroborate the evidence recorded during the trial (sic or) for the purpose of Section 319 CrPC, if so required. What is essential for the purpose of the section is that there should appear some evidence against a person not proceeded against and the stage of the proceedings is irrelevant. Where the complainant is circumspect in proceeding against several persons, but the court is of the opinion that there appears to be some evidence pointing to the complicity of some other persons as well, Section 319 CrPC acts as an empowering provision enabling the court/Magistrate to initiate proceedings against such other persons. The purpose of Section 319 CrPC is to do complete justice and to ensure that persons who ought to have been tried as well are also tried. Therefore, there does not appear to be any difficulty in invoking powers of Section 319 CrPC at the stage of trial in a complaint case when the evidence of the complainant as well as his witnesses are being recorded.
57. Thus, the application of the provisions of Section 319 CrPC, at the stage of inquiry is to be understood in its correct perspective. The power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised only on the basis of the evidence adduced before the court during a trial. So far as its application during the course of inquiry is concerned, it remains limited as referred to hereinabove, adding a person as an accused, whose name has been mentioned in Column 2 of the charge- sheet or any other person who might be an accomplice. 45 … … … 105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross- examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that extraordinary power should be used sparingly only if it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed the offence, he could be tried together with other accused. 46
15. The High Court of Delhi in the case of SARABJIT SINGH V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS2 arabjit Singh (supra) considering this issue has held as follows: “8. In the complaint, reference was made to the company as an accused. It appears that under some confusion, inadvertently the name of the company was omitted from the array of accused. The complainant had brought an application immediately, in 2008 itself, to make suitable correction. By the time, the said application came up for consideration, the summoning order had already been passed. Since the Magistrate did not have the power of review, there was some difficulty in entertaining the said request at that stage. This is why liberty was granted while permitting the first application under Section 319 CrPC to be withdrawn for such application to be moved again. The application on which the order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate which was set aside by the revisional Court, was an application moved in exercise of such liberty.
9. Since the evidence which has come on record does not show the complicity of the second respondent in the crime, the cheques in question having been issued against its account, it having received the notice of demand and not having made any payment in response thereto satisfying the claim of the complainant arising out of the said cheques, the exercise of jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 319 Cr.P.C. could and should not have been interfered with by the revisinoal court.
10. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the revisional Court is set aside and the order dated 22-08-2014 of the Magistrate is restored. The second respondent company consequently will face the prosecution in the criminal complaint along 2 Crl.M.C.2856/2015 & Crl.M.A.10176/2015 decided on 8-10-2018 47 with the other accused, it having been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.” (Emphasis supplied) The Delhi High Court considers the purport of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. qua Section 138 of the Act and holds that the evidence which comes on record does show complicity of the person who is sought to be arrayed as accused in the crime and arraigning all those accused in terms of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. could be permitted. This was called in question before the Apex Court by filing a special leave petition in M TECH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS3. The Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P. by the following order: “1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
2. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not call for any interference. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
3. However, we direct the concerned Magistrate, who is seized of the complaint, to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from to-day.” (Emphasis supplied) 3 S.L.P(Crl.).No.15 of 2019 48 The Apex Court holds on perusal of the record of the case that it was not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. In view of the reasoning and conclusion arrived by the High Court there was no warrant of interference. The reason so rendered by the High Court permitting impleadment is extracted hereinabove. If the facts of the case on hand is considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH and that of the High Court of Delhi in the case of SARABJIT SINGH, what would unmistakably emerge is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was tenable in law.
16. The reason to arrive at this conclusion is that the petitioner had business with the proprietorship concern. Cheques are issued by the proprietorship concern. The proceedings are instituted against the proprietorship concern added with person whom the petitioner was in contact to be the proprietor. The plea now put up is that the complainant has, shot an arrow to a wrong target is untenable. If it were to be a Company, then the Managing Director or the Directors would have been responsible if they had any role to play in the transaction. If it were to be a partnership 49 concern, it would have been a circumstance altogether different, as there would be more than one person in a partnership concern, but the case at hand is a proprietorship concern. There can only be one proprietor or proprietrix, as the case would be. The accused is the proprietorship concern but who the proprietor or proprietrix would become immaterial, more so, in the light of the fact that at no point in time no person divulged that either Jolly Banerji is the proprietor or Mrs. Rupa Banerji is the proprietrix. It is in certain civil proceedings the complainant comes across both Jolly Benerji and Mrs. Rupa Banerji claiming to be proprietor or proprietrix of RNB. It is then the application is filed. The evidence though was by the complainant’s witness that proprietrix is Mrs. Rupa Banerji and on that score holding that the petitioner was always aware that it was Mrs. Rupa Banerji who is the proprietrix is contrary to records.
17. It is well settled that a sole proprietorship firm has no separate legal entity, but in fact it is a business name of the sole proprietor. Any reference to proprietorship firm means and includes the sole proprietor. Sole proprietorship firm or a concern would not fall within the meaning of partnership firm or association of 50 individuals. Vicarious liability cannot be the concept against any employee or firm as it is the sole proprietor who would be responsible for the affairs of the proprietorship concern. In the case at hand, the proprietorship concern is the accused and it is the sole proprietor, be it Mr.Jolly Banerji or Mrs. Rupa Banerji would have to answer the allegations.
18. The contention of the learned senior counsel representing the respondent/Mrs.Rupa Banerji that at this juncture they cannot be arrayed as parties is unacceptable. The reliance placed on the judgment in the case of N.HARIHARA KRISHNAN V. J.THOMAS – (2018) 13 SCC663would be inapplicable to the facts of the case at hand, as the accused there was a partnership firm and not a proprietorship concern. It was a transaction between one M/s Norton Granites & Spinners (P) Ltd. and one M/s Srivari Exports, a partnership firm. In the case at hand, the transaction is between the petitioner/Company and the proprietorship concern. Therefore, the principles on which the Apex Court renders its judgment in N.HARIHARA KRISHNAN is entirely different from the facts obtaining in the case at hand. The contention that offence under 51 Section 138 of the Act being offender centric and not offence centric is a reference made by the Apex court while rendering its judgment concerning the partnership firm which again would not become applicable to the case at hand. The case at hand is concerning proprietorship concern in which only one person is responsible either the proprietor or the proprietrix. The accused have handed over cheques in furtherance of the transaction to the petitioner/Company and those transactions are close to 42 in number and the amount involved is close to Rs.66.00 lakhs. The details of the transactions are as follows: Sl. CRL.P C.C. Cheque Signatory Party arraigned No.No.No.Number to in the Lower Cheque Court proceedings (Accused) 1 7518/ 10975/ 216284 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji 2 6413/ 10975/ 216284 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 3 6414/ 3672/ 165487 Rupa RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its 52 sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 4 6415/ 3691/ 251112 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 5 7500/ 10981/ 165482 Jolly RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 6 7501/ 3692/ 251143 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 7 7502/ 3670/ 251111 Rupa RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 8 7503/ 27124/ 216283 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2016 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 9 7504/ 3676/ 251093 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 10 7505/ 27124/ 216283 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2016 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 11 7506/ 3670/ 251111 Rupa RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems 53 represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 12 7507/ 3690/ 251136 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 13 7508/ 3690/ 251136 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 14 7509/ 3676/ 251093 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 15 7510/ 3675/ 251085 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 16 7511/ 3689/ 251133 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 17 7512/ 3676/ 251093 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 18 7513/ 3689/ 251133 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 54 19 7514/ 3671/ 251113 Rupa RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 20 7516/ 3674/ 251083 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 21 7478/ 3676/ 251096 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 22 7479/ 3691/ 251112 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 23 7480/ 3671/ 251113 Rupa RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 24 7481/ 10981/ 165482 Jolly RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 25 7482/ 27124/ 216283 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2016 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 26 7483/ 3677/ 251096 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – 55 Jolly Banerji. 27 7484/ 3675/ 251085 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 28 7485/ 3692/ 251143 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 29 7486/ 10981/ 165482 Jolly RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 30 7487/ 3671/ 251113 Rupa RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 31 7488/ 3674/ 251083 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 32 7489/ 3690/ 251136 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 33 7490/ 3691/ 251112 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 34 7491/ 10975/ 216284 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its 56 sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 35 7492/ 3672/ 165487 Rupa RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 36 7493/ 3692/ 251143 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 37 7494/ 3674/ 251083 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 38 7495/ 3677/ 251096 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 39 7496/ 3689/ 251133 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 40 7498/ 3675/ 251085 P.K. RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Majumdar Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 41 7498/ 3672/ 165487 Rupa RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. 42 7499/ 3670/ 251111 Rupa RNB Design Arc 2018 2017 Banerji Systems 57 represented by its sole proprietor – Jolly Banerji. Having issued cheques for the aforesaid amount in all the transactions, the accused cannot now wash of their liability on a technical plea that notice is not issued to Mrs. Rupa Banerji and the plea of Mr.Jolly Banerji that he is not the signatory to the cheques or any other hypertechnical plea cannot be taken to escape the clutches of law. As observed hereinabove, the proprietorship concern is answerable through the proprietor or the proprietrix, be it Mr.Jolly Banerji or Mrs.Rupa Banerji. It is an admitted fact that Mrs. Rupa Banerji is the proprietrix. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in allowing the application filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and permitting Mrs. Rupa Banerji and Mr.P.K.Majumdar to be arrayed as accused along with proprietorship concern and they will have to meet the accusation. Mr.P.K.Majumdar is roped in on the ground that he is signatory to several cheques. A caveat, this principle would not become applicable to a Company or a partnership firm. These observations 58 and finding are limited only to a proprietorship concern, as there cannot be more than one proprietor or proprietrix.
19. In the light of the preceding analysis, I find that the order of the learned Sessions Judge upturning the order passed by the learned Magistrate is fundamentally flawed, requiring appropriate interference. Therefore, the following:
ORDER(i) The Criminal Petitions are allowed. (ii) The order dated 28-02-2022 passed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition No.98 of 2021 stands quashed. (iii) The order dated 8-02-2021 passed by the XX Additional Small Causes Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru in C.C.No.27124/2016 c/w C.C. Nos.3670/2017, 3671, 3672, 3674, 3675, 3676, 3677, 3689, 3690, 3691, 3692, 10975, 10981/2017 stands restored. Sd/- JUDGE bkp CT:MJ