Allowed

Sri Mustafa v. M v Sri a C Mohammed Harif

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2021CRL.A/257/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against an order acquitting the respondent/s for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to non-prosecution by the appellant/complainant. The appellant was directed to pay costs and prosecute diligently.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; complaint restored; appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- cost.

Sri Mustafa v M Vs Sri a C Mohammed Harif — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MUSTAFA V.M, SON OF ABOOBACER HAJI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT V. M. HOSUE, POST CHELAVOOR, CALICUT, KERALA - 673571.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, MR. S. KISHORE, SON OF M.SURESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 52/1, 1ST CROSS, CLY LAYOUT, HOSUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560029.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.RAGHU BABU.N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI A.C. MOHAMMED HARIF, SON OF MOHAMMED KUTTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT HAKEEMAS, SADANANDA PAI ROAD,

¶14

CHIRAKKARA THALASEERY,

¶15

¶16

KANNOOR DISTRICT, KERALA - 670101

¶17

ALSO OFFICE AT ROYAL COMFORT PARK, AT HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 560087

¶18

MONARCH INTERNATIONAL PREMIUM LODGING, AT NO 48, 10TH MAIN, 28TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, OPP-BMTC BUS STAND, BANGALORE

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(SRI.K.SUNDARAM, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2018 PASSED BY THE XIX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.27440/2016ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal

¶25

praying to set aside the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Court of XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore city in C.C.No.27440/2016, wherein the complaint

¶26

was dismissed for non-prosecution and the accused was

¶27

¶28

acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶29

Complaint was filed on 17.10.2016 against the respondent in respect of dishonor of a cheque issued by him for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. Accused was summoned to appear before the trial Court. Subsequently, since the complainant remained absent continuously, the trial Court, vide order dated 09.01.2018 dismissed the complaint for nonprosecution.

¶30

The trial Court had no option but to dismiss the complaint in view of non-cooperation by the complainant. It is seen that on 03.01.2018 the case was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the complainant, by imposing cost of Rs.300/- and the said cost was also not paid.

¶31

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the amount involved is huge. The complainant has good

¶32

¶33

case on merit. He submits that if the complaint is not restored, the complainant will be put to immense hardship and the same will lead to miscarriage of justice. He submits that, henceforth, the complainant will diligently appear before the trial Court.

¶34

Since the complaint has been dismissed for nonprosecution and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, I deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the complainant in the interest of justice, to prosecute his complaint, however, by imposing cost. Hence, the following;

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Appeal is allowed.

¶37

The order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Court of

¶38

XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore

¶39

City in C.C.No.27440/2016 is hereby set aside.

¶40

¶41

The complaint shall be restored to its original file and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

¶42

It is made clear that no further indulgence will be shown to the complainant.

¶43

He shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent by

¶44

next date of hearing before the trial Court.

¶45

Registry shall send back the trial Court records.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sri Mustafa v. M v Sri a C Mohammed Harif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mustafa v. M v Sri a C Mohammed Harif

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

Rajareddy Vs the State

Manoj Kumar Vs State by Byatarayanapura Police Station

Sri Hanumesh Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh @ Dildhar Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Shivamurthy @ Murthy Vs Sate of Karnataka

H Sharath Kumar Vs State by