Allowed

Smt. Sumithra Bhat v. Mr. Ben Compose

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2022CRL.A/378/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal, filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., challenged an order dismissing the trial case due to the appellant's non-appearance. The High Court condoned a 322-day delay by imposing court costs and granted special leave, ultimately setting aside the dismissal and remanding the case to the trial court for disposal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed. The delay was condoned with payment of Rs. 10,000 costs. The order of dismissal was set aside and the case remanded to the trial court. Appellant and respondent directed to app

Smt. Sumithra Bhat Vs Mr. Ben Compose — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.378 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Smt. Sumithra Bhat W/o Manjunath Bhat Aged about 75 years Residing at No.203 Sadashiva Apartment No.20, Langford Garden Near Richmond Circle Bangalore-560025.

¶7

…Appellant (By Sri Thribhuvan Chakravarthy, Advocate)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Ben Compose Major, Residing at Flat No.101, Sadashiva Apartment No.20, Langfor Garden Near Richmond Circle Bangalore-560025.

¶10

…Respondent (By Sri Roy D. Silva, Advocate)

¶11

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) read with Section 382 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 05.01.2019 on the file of the XLIII A.C.M.M., Mayohall, Bengaluru in C.C. No.54411/2017

¶12

:: 2 ::

¶13

for the offence P/U/S 354, 323 of IPC against the respondent.

¶14

This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

IA No.2/2020 is filed under Section 5 of the

¶17

Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 322 days in filing this appeal.

¶18

It is submitted by Sri Tribhuvan

¶19

Chakravatrhy, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had earlier filed the appeal numbered as Crl.A.No.620/2019. It was withdrawn. This court by order dated 13.01.2020 granted liberty to the appellant to file fresh appeal at the time of dismissing the appeal as withdrawn and thereafter the present appeal was filed and thus the delay occurred. It is submitted that the delay has been explained and therefore it is to be condoned.

¶20

:: 3 ::

¶21

Sri Roy D Silva, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant did not appear before the trial court for quite a long time, this shows negligence on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the case. The trial court was justified in dismissing the case and discharging the accused. There are no reasons for condoning the delay.

¶22

After hearing both the sides, it is to be stated that according to the appellant, her counsel did not inform her that she should appear before the court. This was the reason for her continuous absence before the court. It appears that she has also taken action against her earlier counsel. The appellant has produced the certified copy of the order in Crl.A.No.620/2019. This shows that she withdrew the earlier appeal and she was given liberty to file fresh appeal. In this view delay is explained. However, the application cannot be

¶23

:: 4 ::

¶24

allowed without subjecting the appellant to cost. In this view, application is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondent.

¶25

IA No.1/2020 is filed seeking special

¶26

leave to prefer the appeal. The records disclose that the police filed ‘B’ report and challenging the same, the appellant filed protest petition. Since she did not appear before the trial court at the stage of evidence before charge, the case came to be dismissed. The appellant has complained against counsel who was conducting her case. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she has given a complaint to the Bar Council against her advocate. Her age is nearly 80 years now. The offences complained are punishable under Sections 323 and 354 of IPC. Though the trial court is justified in dismissing the case for non appearance of the appellant, however to see that she should be given one more opportunity to

¶27

:: 5 ::

¶28

establish her case, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence IA No.1/2020 is allowed. Consequently appeal is also allowed .

¶29

Order of dismissal dated 05.01.2019, passed by the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.54411/2017 is set-aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law.

¶30

The appellant and the accused shall appear before the trial court on 08.08.2022. The appellant shall co-operate with the trial court in speedy disposal of the case.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Kmv/-

Smt. Sumithra Bhat v. Mr. Ben Compose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sumithra Bhat v. Mr. Ben Compose

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

M/S Jyothi Electricals Vs Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited

M Chandrashekar @ Deepu @ Deepak Vs State of Karnataka

Raju @ Psychopooma Vs State by Byataranapura

Sri.Kedila Narasimha Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

Sumanth @ Suman Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Komarla Feeds Vs N Sathish