Allowed

The Managing Director v. Ramadas S/O Kasinath Choure

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2022CRL.A/100069/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the Trial Court's order dismissing a complaint for non-prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal, and directed the Trial Court to restore the case, granting the appellant one more opportunity to secure the accused via proclamation.

What did the court decide?

The challenged order of dismissal for non-prosecution dated 17/10/2019 was set aside, and the trial court was directed to restore the case and grant one more opportunity to issue a proclamation.

The Managing Director Vs Ramadas S/O Kasinath Choure — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.A No. 100069 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100069 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR RAITAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT, RANNANAGAR, TIMMAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 987 101. REP. BY ASHOK S/O VENKAPPA MORAB, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: MANAGING DIRECTOR, R/O: RANNANAGAR, TIMMAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587 101. (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

RAMADAS S/O KASINATH CHOURE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O: TUKUCHAWADI (66) POST: JIVACHAWADI, TQ: KEJ, DIST: BEED, STATE MAHARASHTRA – 431 519.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶14

…RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (4) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR NON-PROSECUTION DATED 17/10/2019 IN CC NO.297/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AND RESTORE THE COMPLAINT ON ITS FILE.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.

¶16

¶17

CRL.A No. 100069 of 2020

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Today the matter is listed for admission.

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the respondent-accused did not appear before the Trial Court. The issuance of the notice may be dispensed with in order to dispose the appeal.

¶21

Submission is placed on record.

¶22

Notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶23

On perusal of the order sheet, it appear that the Trial Court after taking cognizance, issued summons to the accused. Thereafter, the accused remained absent. Not appeared before the Court. Then, the Trial Court issued NBW to the accused on 24.12.2014, the same has not been executed to the accused. Therefore, the counsel for the complainant filed an application to issue proclamation on 28.03.2019. The matter again posted for the same stage on 17.10.2019. The Trial Court passed the following order:

¶24

¶25

CRL.A No. 100069 of 2020

¶26

“Again case is called at 4.30pm. Complainant and his counsel called out absent.

¶27

This case is pending since from 2014 and the complainant has taken issuance of NBW against the accused since from 25.09.2014 till 10.01.2019. After lapse of long period, the complainant has filed petition U/sec. 82 of Cr.P.C., on 28.03.2019 without producing recent property extract. As the matter is of the year 2014, the same has to be disposed of as early as possible. Today the case is called two times in the open court by the complainant has not taken further steps or he has not chosen to produce the recent property extract of the accused. The complainant except filing PF memo has not assisted the police to secure the accused. No grounds made out by the complainant to grant another date.

¶28

Accordingly the complaint is dismissed for non prosecution.”

¶29

On perusal of the above proceedings of the Trial Court, it appears that, sufficient efforts have been made by the complainant to secure the accused. However, the complainant failed to secure him. The accused in spite of having issued NBW, he did not appear before the Trial Court.

¶30

¶31

CRL.A No. 100069 of 2020

¶32

It is further submitted by the learned counsel

¶33

for the appellant is that, the Trial Court insisted the property extract of the accused to issue proclamation. After considering the inability of the complainant in producing the property extract of the accused, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint.

¶34

Now, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the appellant is ready to produce the property extract of the accused.

¶35

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also the efforts made by the complainant to secure the presence of the accused, it is appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the complainant to take necessary steps for the purpose of issuance of proclamation. Hence, the order passed by the Trial Court requires to be set aside.

¶36

In the light of the above observations, I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

¶38

CRL.A No. 100069 of 2020

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) The appeal is allowed.

¶41

ii) The order dated 17.10.2019 in C.C.No.297/2014 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is set aside.

¶42

iii) The Trial Court is directed to restore C.C.No.297/2014 in the same stage and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶43

iv) The complainant shall appear before the Trial Court on 15.11.2022 and proceed with the matter without any undue delay or any other reasons.

¶44

SSP

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

The Managing Director v. Ramadas S/O Kasinath Choure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Ramadas S/O Kasinath Choure

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harikrishna @ B.S. Ramesh S/O. K. Balasubramanya Vs Yeshoda @ M. Seela W/O. Harikrishna @ B.S.

Mohammed Ismail S/O. Mohammed Jameel Tamatagar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shantha Kumari W/O Late Nagaraja Vs K Thippeshi S/O K Durgappa

Shri.Shankar Dada Patil Vs Shri.Ramchandra Gangaram Domane

The Managing Director Vs Rasul S/O Rasu Shekh

The Managing Director Vs Madhukar S/O Kishan Munde