Allowed

B R Siddaramu v. M H Ravi

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2021CRL.A/886/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against an order of acquittal and dismissal due to non-prosecution in a cheque dishonour case, the High Court set aside the impugned order passed by a court lacking jurisdiction and restored the case to the original file, directing transfer to the newly constituted court.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.02.2019 is set aside, C.C. No. 18126/2016 is restored to the original file, and the XII A.C.M.M. Court is directed to transfer the file to the VII SCC/A.C.M.M. Court.

B R Siddaramu Vs M H Ravi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.886 OF 2020 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B R SIDDARAMU, S/O R. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI VISHNUMURTHY AND C MANJULA, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

M H RAVI, S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, (RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHER), AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALU, BANGLAORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED BY THE XII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.18126/2016 (PCR NO.8164/2016) – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I.ACT.

¶15

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

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Even though this appeal is at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant complainant arguments are heard for final disposal.

¶18

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 27.02.2019 passed in C.C. No.18126/2016 by the XII A.C.M.M. dismissing the complaint for non prosecution, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused and to restore the private complaint filed by the appellant.

¶19

The facts in brief are that the complainant has advanced a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent accused. When the complainant demanded for repayment the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.014168 dated 07.06.2016 for

¶20

¶21

Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Vishveshwarapura Branch, Doddaballapura road, Nelamangala. The said cheque was presented to the bank for collection, but the same was returned with an endorsement dated 21.6.2016 “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice and the same was duly served on the accused on 01.07.2016. Despite service of notice the accused respondent has not responded. Hence a private complaint was filed.

¶22

On recording the sworn statement, complaint was registered as criminal case. On issuance of notice the accused did not appear, but later on issuance of NBW the accused has appeared. After few hearing dates the case was posted for settlement on 04.11.2017 the matter was posted for settlement. Thereafter on 20.11.2017 the case was transferred from XII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru to Small Causes Court – VII/A.C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru as per notification No.ADM 1/19/17 dated 20.11.2017. Even though the said case was transferred to VII SCC and A.C.M.M. Court, the file was not sent to that Court and

¶23

¶24

the said case was not called out there. Later on 27.02.2019 the complaint was dismissed on the reasons that the complainant and his counsel have failed to appear on several hearing dates and the complainant is not interested to prosecute the proceedings.

¶25

The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the notification No.ADM 1/19/17 dated 20.11.2017 the counsel was under the impression that the case would be transferred to the VII SCC/ACMM Court, Bengaluru, as such he did not appear before the XII ACMM Court, Bengaluru. Because of the said confusion the appellant and his counsel were unable to appear and lead evidence or continue the proceedings.

¶26

This Court had no opportunity to hear the submission of the respondent as he has remained absent despite service of notice.

¶27

¶28

A perusal of the order sheet in C.C. No.18126/2016

¶29

on the file of XII ACMM, Bengaluru city discloses that as per the notification No.ADM 1/19/17 dated 20.11.2017 this case was transferred to VII SCC/ACMM Court, Bengaluru. In view of the said notification the file should have been transferred to the concerned VII SCC/ACMM Court, Bengaluru, but the very same court instead of transferring the file, has passed the order dated 27.02.2019 for dismissal of the complaint.

¶30

It is pertinent to note that in view of the notification No.ADM 1/19/17 dated 20.11.2017 C.C. No.18126/2016 was transferred to the VII SCC/ACMM Court, Bengaluru. XII A.C.M.M. Court became functus officio, as such the very same Court should not have ventured to take up this case and pass orders of dismissal of the complaint. The order of dismissal of complaint is without jurisdiction and not justified.

¶31

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following –

¶32

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The appeal is allowed.

¶35

Order dated 27.02.2019 is set aside. C.C. No. 18126/2016

¶36

is restored to the original file.

¶37

The XII A.C.M.M. Court is directed to transfer the C.C. No.18126/2016 as per notification No.ADM 1/19/17 dated 20.11.2017 to the VII SCC and A.C.M.M. Court, if the same is not transferred. Then the notice shall be issued by the VII S.C.C. and A.C.M.M. Court to both the parties for their appearance and continue the proceedings in accordance with law.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

ykl

B R Siddaramu v. M H Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B R Siddaramu v. M H Ravi

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

A. S. Shankaranayana Setty Vs State by Thalaghattapura

Rajaiah Vs Premameri

Mr. J Shankar Naidu Vs Sri. K S Nagendra

Mr Kamal Kishore Vs Nitesh Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd.

H. C. Umapathy Vs K. Jayaram

Rayappa S/O Mallappa Bavingidad and Anr. Vs the State