Allowed

Jagadeesha C.K v. Naveen Lyoyd Misquith

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2020CRL.A/1126/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against the dismissal of a cheque bounce case for non-prosecution, the High Court held that dismissing the complaint after partial examination of the complainant was unacceptable and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21-10-2015 setting aside the complaint for non-prosecution was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial Court.

Jagadeesha C.K Vs Naveen Lyoyd Misquith — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1126/2016

¶5

BETWEEN: JAGADEESHA C.K. S/O KRISHNAMURTHY RAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O GAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMPURA POST, CHIKMAGALUR TALUKA AND DISTRICT PIN CODE: 577103.

¶6

... APPELLANT

¶7

(BY SRI UMESH P.B. FOR SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANT – THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING.)

¶8

AND: NAVEEN LYOYD MISQUITH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PROP: GREEN BIOTECH, HILARY PINTO IND. ESTATE, C.K.MUDUGUNI VILLAGE, BALEHONNUR POST, N.R.PURA TALUKA, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN CODE: 577112.

¶9

…RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI H.MALATESH, ADV. – ABSENT)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CRPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR IN C.C.NO.599/2013-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.

¶12

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING FOR ‘ADMISSION’ ON THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The counsel for the respondent is absent.

¶16

This appeal is directed against the Judgment passed by the 2^nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, wherein the case came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 21-10-2015.

¶17

In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

¶18

The substance of the case is that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The same was registered as P.C.R No.399/2012. Thereafter it was numbered as CC No.599/2013. On 01-06-2013, the sworn statement is said to have been recorded and the examination of witnesses commenced on 21-10-2015. The matter was posted for cross-examination of the complainant. Both the counsel, the accused were absent and the complaint was dismissed on 21-10-2015. Several adjournments were granted and accused was present regularly. On 08-10-2015

¶19

¶20

he was absent. The matter was adjourned for crossexamination. Again, on the next date of hearing on 19-10-2015, the accused was present. The complainant was absent. The matter was posted on 21-10-2015. On 21-10-2015, PW.1 was absent. The cross-examination could not be tendered and the complaint was dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶21

The facts of the case are that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- and issued a cheque bearing No.125183 dated 03-10-2012 drawn on ICICI Bank, Chikkamagalur Branch. When the Cheque was presented, it came to be dishonoured. The learned trial Judge should have realized that the complainant was partly examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. Further, he was also crossexamined in-part. With these facts and legal position, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution, which I find is totally unacceptable. It is liable to be set aside and matter requires to be remanded. Hence, the following:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 21-10-2015 passed by the 2^nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC,

¶24

¶25

Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Case No.599/2013 is set aside.

¶26

Matter stands remanded to the trial Court for disposal.

¶27

The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 18^th December, 2020 and the trial Court shall dispose off the matter from the stage where it was left.

¶28

However, if there are good grounds for allowing the witnesses to be examined further or documents to be filed by either of the parties, opportunity may be given to them.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Rsk/CT-HR

Jagadeesha C.K v. Naveen Lyoyd Misquith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadeesha C.K v. Naveen Lyoyd Misquith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri D Murugan Vs Abdul Gaffar Khan

M Puttaiah Vs Y M Shingappaiah

Smt Kamalamma Vs Smt Huchamma

Sri Thimmegowda S/O Sri Honnegowda Vs Sri Channegowda S/O Late Channegowda

M/S Rolastar Private Limited Vs M/S Hvac Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Sri B Venkataramanappa Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Sri M Muniyappa @ Hebburappa