Allowed

C Halappa v. Gurudev B

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2022CRL.P/2776/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka quashed the order dismissing a private complaint for want of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and restored the complaint to its original file.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.04.2017 in C.C.No.20930/2015 is quashed, and the complaint is restored to its original file.

C Halappa Vs Gurudev B — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2776 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

C. HALAPPA AGED 50 YEARS S/O SRI NEELAKANTAPPA, NO.35, 'A' CROSS, KASTURINAGAR, BADAVANE MAIN ROAD, RAJGOPALNAGAR, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 058. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND : GURUDEV B AGED 58 YEARS R/AT NO.75, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND 'A' CROSS, NEAR SHREE MATENNITY ROAD, WARD NO.14, DEFENCE COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 075. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI KIRAN T., ADVOCATE)

¶9

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET

¶10

¶11

ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.20930/2015 BY THE XII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR NON-PROSECUTION FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the cheque which was issued in favour of the complainant by the accused towards legally recoverable debt when presented for realization was returned for want of funds.

¶15

Learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement took cognizance for the aforesaid offence and issued summons. The summons issued to the accused was returned with an acknowledgement 'un-served'. Thereafter, the complainant has taken steps on couple of occasions, but however, when the complaint was

¶16

¶17

listed on 26.04.2017 for taking steps, the complainant and his counsel remained absent and the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶18

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶19

Summons was issued to the accused which was returned un-served. Thereafter, the complainant has taken steps on couple of occasion for re-issuing summons to the accused. On 26.04.2017 the complainant and his counsel remained absent. Hence, the Trial Court having no other option dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. It would cause injustice, if the petitioner-complainant is not provided with one more opportunity to take steps for issuing notice to accused and no prejudice would be caused to

¶20

¶21

the accused, if the complaint is restored to the original

¶22

file. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶25

ii. The impugned order dated 26.04.2017

¶26

passed by the XII Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru in C.C.No.20930/2015 is hereby quashed and the complaint is restored to its original file. The learned Magistrate to proceed from the stage of re-issuing the summons to the accused.

¶27

Sd/- JUDGE

¶28

RKA

C Halappa v. Gurudev B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Halappa v. Gurudev B

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

Mr. Bachegowda H M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr P S Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu Vs State of Karnataka

The India Cements Ltd. Vs Bescom

Saleem Pasha Hafeez Vs State of Karnataka by

Jan Willem Adriaan De Geus Vs State of Karnataka by