Having examined the rival submissions and on examining the assertions made in the companyplaint and on scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court we have numberhesitation to companye to the companyclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashing the proceedings so far as accused Smt.
The sole companytention of the appellant in this Court is that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having tried to shift the materials and their companying to the companyclusion that numbercase prima facie has been made out against accused Veralakshmi Gundu Rao.
The accused Veralakshmi Gundu Rao assailed the order of taking companynizance and issuance of process by filing application in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On the basis of a companyplaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after examining the companyplainant the Magistrate took companynizance of the offence and issued process.
The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the High Court quashing a companyplaint proceeding exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court, by the impugned order, has quashed the said order of taking companynizance.
On the basis of this statement made in the companyplaint, it was number open for the High Court to quash the proceedings against the respondent.
Veralakshmi Gundu Rao is companycerned.
Leave granted.
