The rubber seal order put on the companyplaint itself reads as follows Presented on 19/4/2000 Cognizance taken Register put up on 1/6/2000 Sd This has been signed by the 14th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
On 29.7.2000, the Magistrate proceeded to record the statement of the companyplainant and thereafter by order dated July 31, 2000, issued process against the respondents finding that there was ground to proceed against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The appellant is the companyplainant, and he is aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court whereby the High Court remitted the matter to the Magistrate on a finding that the Magistrate had issued process against the respondents without taking companynizance of the offence, and since taking of companynizance was a companydition precedent, the issuance of process was bad.
It appears that the order sheet is number signed by the Magistrate himself, though the rubber seal order is signed by him.
The said petition has been disposed of by a brief order, the relevant portion of which reads as follows On presentation of the companyplaint before the Magistrate, the Magistrate neither endorsed on the companyplaint by applying his mind to proceed with the companyplaint by taking companynizance number in the order sheet produced.
It is number in dispute that four cheques were issued by respondent No.2, the Managing Director of the respondent No.1 Company for the total amount of rupees five crores.
The order sheet of the companyrt of that date records that companynizance was taken against the accused persons in the presence of the companyplainant whose statement was to be recorded on 1.6.2000.
The appellant filed a companyplaint before the 14th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore who on 19.4.2000, the date of filing of the companyplaint itself, directed the matter to be put up on 01.06.2000.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.21st September, 2004 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No.4469/2002.
After about four years, the respondents moved an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding.
The payments were made by respondent No.2 on behalf of the respondent No.1 companypany of which he was a Director.
The cheques were dishonoured since the respondent No.2 stopped payment of those cheques.
No.320/2005 Special Leave granted.
The same has been assailed in this petition on various grounds.
The companyrectness of this order is challenged before us.
