Allowed

Mr.K.R.Padmanabha v. Mr.Shailesh K

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2023CRL.A/1747/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. The court found the appellant's absence was bona fide, restored the complaint, imposed costs, and directed the trial court to conclude the case within six months.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; complaint restored; cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on appellant; disposal within six months; parties directed to appear on 6.3.2023.

Mr.K.R.Padmanabha Vs Mr.Shailesh K — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.A No. 1747 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1747 OF 2019

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR.K.R. PADMANABHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRI K.B.RAMUSA, NO.16/1, AMERICAN COLONY, KUMARA PARTK EAST, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

[BY SRI. PRABHAKAR L. SHETTY, ADVOCATE (VC)]

¶9

AND:

¶10

MR.SHAILESH K, NO.42, 2^ND CROSS, A-1, WESTERN MANOR RESIDENCY, AATHMANANDA COLONY, SULTHAN PALYA, R T NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶11

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. CHANDAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2016 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.28449/2014 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.02.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

2 - CRL.A No. 1747 of 2019

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, dismissing the complaint in C.C.No.28449/2014, for non-prosecution and also prays to restore the complaint.

¶19

Brief facts of the case is as under :

¶20

The appellant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in PCR No.13722/14 on the file of the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, against the respondent. The ACMM took cognisance of the offence against the respondent and registered a criminal case in C.C.No.28449/14 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on the ground that, the cheque issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant in connection with a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- received by the respondent, came to be dishonoured. The ACMM issued summons to the respondent and later the appellant was examined on oath and the matter was posted for

¶21

3 - CRL.A No. 1747 of 2019

¶22

cross examination. But, on 4.3.2016, the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant and his counsel remained absent before the trial Court. Therefore, the appellant had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.304/16 before the LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the trial Court. However, the learned LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶24

the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly

¶26

submitted that the appeal may be allowed by imposing cost on the appellant and the court may impose timeline for expeditious disposal of the matter.

¶27

¶28

CRL.A No. 1747 of 2019

¶29

Perused the material available on record.

¶30

According to the appellant, when the case was posted for cross examination of the appellant, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the complaint for non-

¶31

prosecution.

¶32

I am satisfied that the absence of the complainant/appellant before the Court was bonafide and not an intentional one. If the appeal is allowed and the complaint is restored, the respondent would not suffer any hardship and if the appeal is not allowed and the complaint is not restored, the appellant would suffer great hardship. Therefore, I am satisfied that the absence of the counsel and the complainant was not intentional and a bonafide one. If complaint is restored to its original side, no hardship or prejudice would cause to the respondent provided, if cost is imposed on the complainant with a direction to proceed with the matter expeditiously then, no hardship or prejudice would cause to both the parties.

¶33

¶34

CRL.A No. 1747 of 2019

¶35

Hence, the following order is passed :

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The appeal is allowed and the cost of Rs.5,000/- is

¶38

imposed on the appellant payable to the respondent;

¶39

ii) The trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously and dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶40

iii) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial

¶41

Court on 6.3.2023.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Mr.K.R.Padmanabha v. Mr.Shailesh K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.K.R.Padmanabha v. Mr.Shailesh K

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 Parameshwara Associates Vs Linge Gowda, Authorised Signatory

Jayaraju, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M.V Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekhar @ Somesh Vs the Station House Officer