Allowed

Dev Prakash Gupta v. M/S Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC25 Aug 2022CRL.A/2148/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeals filed by the complainant seeking to set aside an acquittal order in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 N.I.Act. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the acquittal, and remanded the matters to the Magistrate for trial due to the appellant's illness.

What did the court decide?

Sets aside acquittal order; restores complaints to Magistrate for trial with directions to parties to appear on 12.9.2022 and pay costs.

Dev Prakash Gupta Vs M/S Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2148 OF 2016 C/W

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2149 OF 2016

¶7

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2148 OF 2016

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Dev Prakash Gupta No.5 and 6, Millia Building N.R. Road, 2^nd Cross Bangalore-560 002.

¶10

…Appellant

¶11

(By Sri Ravikumar M.C., Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/s. Innovative Studios

¶14

Pvt. Ltd.

¶15

Mr. Saravana Prasad Chairman & Mg. Director

¶16

Mrs. Upsana Mittal CEO & Executive Director

¶17

Mr. M. Lokaraj Director – HR

¶18

Mrs. Radhika Achuthan Director – Finance

¶19

Mrs. Hema Lokaraj Director

¶20

:: 2 ::

¶21

Mrs. Shashikala Venugopal Director

¶22

Mr. Suman Bhawaralal Pirgal Director

¶23

All at:

¶24

M/s Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd. 135, Outer Ring Road Varthur Hobli Marathalli Junction Bangalore-560 037. …Respondents

¶25

(Dr.J.S. Halashetti, Advocate for R1 to R8)

¶26

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the XXI A.C.M.M., Bengaluru in C.C. No.1488/2013 – acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶27

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2149 OF 2016

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

Mr. D.P. Gupta No.5 and 6, Millia Building N.R. Road, 2^nd Cross Bangalore-560 002.

¶30

…Appellant

¶31

(By Sri Ravikumar M.C., Advocate)

¶32

AND:

¶33

M/s. Innovative Studios

¶34

Pvt. Ltd.

¶35

:: 3 ::

¶36

Mr. Saravana Prasad

¶37

Chairman & Mg. Director

¶38

Mrs. Upsana Mittal CEO & Executive Director

¶39

Mr. M. Lokaraj Director – HR

¶40

Mrs. Radhika Achuthan Director – Finance

¶41

Mrs. Hema Lokaraj Director

¶42

Mrs. Shashikala Venugopal Director

¶43

Mr. Suman Bhawaralal Pirgal Director

¶44

All at:

¶45

M/s Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd. 135, Outer Ring Road Varthur Hobli Marathalli Junction Bangalore-560 037. …Respondents (Dr.J.S. Halashetti, Advocate for R2 to R6; R1 and R8 - served)

¶46

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 03.11.2016 passed by the XXI A.C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C. No.21294/2012 – acquitting/accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶47

:: 4 ::

¶48

These Criminal Appeals coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

Heard Sri.Ravikumar M.C., learned counsel for

¶51

the appellant and Sri. Dr. Jagadish S. Halashetti, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 8 in Crl.A.2148/2016 and respondent no.2 to 6 in Crl.A.2149/2016.

¶52

These two appeals have been filed by the

¶53

complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2016 dismissing the criminal cases, C.C.No.1488/2013 and C.C.No.21294/2012 on the file of XXI Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru, in the proceedings initiated for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act. The complainant in both the cases is common. As he did not appear before the court on 3.11.2016, both the cases were dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not appear before the court on 3.11.2016 as he had fallen sick. Medical

¶54

:: 5 ::

¶55

certificate is produced in proof of the same. His absence before the court was not intentional. For this reason if the appeals are allowed and the cases remanded to the Magistrate court for trial, the interest of the respondent’s will not be prejudiced in anyway.

¶56

Dr. Jagadish S. Halashetti, counsel for

¶57

respondents submits that 1^st respondent-company was ordered to be wound up on 8.1.2021 and there is nobody to represent the company. No purpose would be served if the cases are remanded.

¶58

It appears that the Company going into liquidation is a subsequent development. The learned Magistrate may decide the impact of winding up proceedings on the criminal cases initiated for the offences under section 138 of N.I.Act. As it is found that the appellant could not appear before the court on 3.11.2016 due to his

¶59

:: 6 ::

¶60

sickness, his absence before the court was not intentional and in this view one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to appear before the Magistrate in order to prove his case. The interest of the respondents does not get affected, if the complaints are restored to the file of Magistrate. Imposition of cost on the appellant symbolically protects the interest of the respondents as they have to appear before the Magistrate once again. Hence the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. Appeals are allowed.

¶63

ii. The order dated 3.11.2016 passed by the Magistrate in C.C.No.1488/2013 and C.C.No.21294/2012 are set aside. The complaints are restored to the file of the Magistrate.

¶64

:: 7 ::

¶65

iii. The appellant is directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- in each case to the contesting respondent.

¶66

iv. The parties are directed to appear before the Magistrate court on 12.9.2022. Cost shall be paid to the respondent in the court below.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Dev Prakash Gupta v. M/S Innovative Studios Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Prakash Gupta v. M/S Innovative Studios 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. K. Immanna Vs Sri. S. Nemojirao

Smt. Renuka Vs Sri Ramadas

Narasimha @ Rajappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ahalya J N Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Padmanaba Reddy M Vs Smt Mohan Kumari B L

Mr. K. S. Mahesh Vs State of Karnataka