Allowed

Smt Adilakshmi v. Mr Ramesh Babu

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2022CRL.RP/456/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Trial Court which dismissed the case for non-prosecution. The matter is restored to the Trial Court file to proceed in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge is set aside and the Special Case No.119/2017 is restored on the Trial Court file to proceed in accordance

Smt Adilakshmi Vs Mr Ramesh Babu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.456/2018

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. ADILAKSHMI W/O MR. BALU OBALU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.30, 1^ST FLOOR 1^ST CROSS, 2^ND STAGE EJIPURA MAIN ROAD VIVEKNAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 047

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . MR RAMESH BABU AGED 44 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT BALAJI REAL ESTATE OFFICE BEHIND CANARA BANK VIVEK NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 047

¶13

2 . MANOJ

¶14

HAVING OFFICE AT BALAJI REAL ESTATE OFFICE BEHIND CANARA BANK VIVEK NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 047

¶15

¶16

3 . SHIVARAM

¶17

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.13, 5^TH CROSS ADUGODI, KORAMANGALA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 040

¶18

4 . SMT. SUSHEELA

¶19

W/O SHIVRAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.13, 5^TH CROSS ADUGODI, KORAMANGALA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 040

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMARA, ADOVATE FOR R1; PETITION AGAINST R2 TO R4 IS DISMISSED V/O DT.01.04.2022)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 RW SECTION 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.119/2017 AND ETC.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent is absent. The petitioner prayed this Court to set aside the order passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru dated 31.10.2017 and restore the Special Case No.119/2017.

¶26

¶27

The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court is that a private complaint was filed and the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police have filed B-report and protest petition was filed against the B-report and sworn statement was recorded and the Trial Court took the cognizance against one of the accused and thereafter the accused also appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. When the case was posted for evidence before charge and also for furnishing RTC, on 11.10.2017, this petitioner was absent and again on 31.10.2017, the case was called out twice and this petitioner was absent and hence, the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution and also observed in the order that the prosecution case is devoid of prima facie case against accused No.1 and accused No.1 was discharged and hence, the present revision petition is filed.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petition was dismissed on the ground that the complainant was absent and the case was set down for furnishing RTC as well as EBC and on the very next

¶29

¶30

date without giving an opportunity, the petition was dismissed. The counsel also would submit that once the Court has taken the cognizance, the Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the petition on the ground that the prosecution case is also devoid of merits.

¶31

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel

¶32

for the petitioner that it is not in dispute that the Trial Court took the cognizance and thereafter recorded the sworn statement of the complainant/petitioner and the record also discloses that after taking cognizance, the respondent appeared before the Trial Court and he was enlarged on bail and directed to produce RTC and the case was set down for evidence before charge. No doubt, when the matter was set down for production of RTC and EBC, the petitioner was absent and on the very next date, the case was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and also while dismissing the petition, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that prosecution case is devoid of merits against accused No.1. Once cognizance was taken, the Trial Court ought not to have passed such an order in coming to the conclusion

¶33

¶34

that the prosecution case is devoid of prima facie case against accused No.1. The Trial Court ought to have recorded the evidence before the charge and then came to the conclusion that whether there is a material or not to frame the charge and inspite of that discharged the accused No.1 and hence, the said order is erroneous. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶36

following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge is set aside. The Special Case No.119/2017 is restored on the file of the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Smt Adilakshmi v. Mr Ramesh Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Adilakshmi v. Mr Ramesh Babu

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

Master Pavan S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C S Tyagarajan Vs Sri B S Laxmipathy

Sridhar S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Mamatha J., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri L Chandrashekar Vs Sri M S Jayaramegowda

The State by Vs Khader Hussain @ Suresh @ Khader