Allowed

M/S Reynolds Sound and Lighting Services Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S Common Colors Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2021CRL.A/1388/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the dismissal of a cheque dishonour case. The trial court had dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution due to the complainant's absence. The High Court, considering medical evidence proving the complainant's illness, quashed the dismissal and restored the case file to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The order of dismissal dated 24.03.2017 is set aside and the criminal case C.C.No.12186/2014 is restored to the original file.

M/S Reynolds Sound and Lighting Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1388 OF 2017 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S REYNOLDS SOUND & LIGHTING SERVICES PVT.LTD., NO.10, 8TH CROSS, BAZAAR STREET, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU-560047.

¶8

REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.30, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU-560047.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.FELIX REMEDIOS, R/O NO.28, 10TH MAIN, LAUGHING WATERS, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, RAMAGONDANAHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066. ...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI CHANDRAMOULI H S AND AMITA NAYAK, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S COMMON COLORS ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD.,

¶13

¶14

NO.194, 2ND MAIN ROAD, HIG DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560094.

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

MR G V VILAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S COMMON COLORS ENTERTAINMENT PVT.LTD., NO.194, 2ND MAIN ROAD, HIG DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560094. …RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI SIJI MALAYIL AND ASSOCIATES)

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED 24.03.2017 PASSED BY THE V ASCJ, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.12186/2014 – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING:

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the

¶24

consent of learned counsel for the appellant and respondents, arguments are heard for final disposal.

¶25

The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.12186/2014 by the V Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing the criminal case for nonprosecution, has preferred this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that

¶27

the complaint was filed on 28.03.2014 and sworn statement was recorded on 07.05.2014. Later on issuance of NBW, accused appeared on 30.05.2016 and accused was released on bail. The matter was posted for complainant’s evidence. The complainant, being a senior citizen, was unable to appear before the Court on three hearing dates due to ill-health. On those hearing dates, application for exemption was filed. On 24.03.2017, the case was posted for complainant’s evidence, but the complainant was unable to appear before the Court because of health problems.

¶28

¶29

Considering the absence of complainant on some of the hearing dates, the trial Court dismissed the complaint for nonprosecution. Due to the dismissal of complaint, the appellant is put to great hardship.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial Court has given sufficient opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence but the complainant remained absent. Hence, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution. There are no valid grounds to interfere with the said order.

¶31

Having heard the submission of learned counsel for

¶32

the appellant and respondent, this Court has gone through the impugned order and the records furnished along with the appeal memo.

¶33

In the present case, the main grievance of the appellant/complainant is that due to health problem, he was not able to appear before the Court on several hearing dates and his

¶34

¶35

absence was not intentional or deliberate one. In order to substantiate the said contention, learned counsel has produced the medical certificate issued by Lakshmi nursing home. The contents of the said medical certificate disclose that the complainant Mr.Felix Gregory Remedios, has been taking treatment from March 2017 as he was diagnosed for Hypertension (uncontrolled), vertigo and also history of repeated episodes of gast unstecodiyesoy vertigo. Further, treated and advised to take bed-rest for four months.

¶36

The said certificate confirms that the appellant was under medical treatment from March to July 2017. During the said period, the trial Court has passed the order of dismissing the complaint. The medical record confirms that on account of illness, the complainant was prevented from appearing before the Court. Substantial justice being paramount, there should be liberal and justice oriented approach.

¶37

¶38

8. Considering the grounds urged, this Court is of the

¶39

view that an opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute his case. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. Criminal appeal is allowed.

¶42

ii. The order dated 24.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.12186/2014 by the V Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru, is set-aside and the said C.C.No.12186/2014 is restored to its original file.

¶43

Both parties are directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on 09.03.2021.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

BSR

M/S Reynolds Sound and Lighting Services Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S Common Colors Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Reynolds Sound and Lighting Services Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S Common Colors Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

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. Anil Kumar S S Vs State of Karnataka by Psi

State by Police Inspector/Sho, Vs Renuka Prasad

Smt Mangala Gowri Vs Sri Muthuraj

Chikkanna Vs Narasegowda

K B Dhananjaya Vs Smt Y S Padmavathi

M/S R R Commercials Vs M/S Madanpalle Spinning Mills Ltd.