Allowed

Sri Shivalinga v. Sri J Manju

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2023CRL.A/689/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed this criminal appeal against the dismissal of a cheque-bounce complaint for non-prosecution due to the complainant's absence. The court set aside the lower order, restored the case file, and directed the trial court to provide an opportunity for the complainant to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; case restored to trial court file; Trial Court directed to secure accused and provide opportunity to complainant.

Sri Shivalinga Vs Sri J Manju — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46524 CRL.A No. 689 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 689 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SHIVALINGA, S/O R.LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEWARS, R/AT NO.92, 10^TH CROSS, CHANDRA NAGAR, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SUMAN M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGARAJ DAMODAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. J.MANJU, S/O K.JYOTHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.291, 22^ND CROSS, 69^TH MAIN, NEAR 15 E BUS STOP, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER TO RESTORE THE CRIMINAL CASE NO.10740/2014 TO THE ORIGINAL FILE BEFORE THE XXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.

¶14

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46524 CRL.A No. 689 of 2015

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 31.01.2015 in C.C.No.10740/2014 as the trial Court has dismissed the complaint for nonprosecution.

¶18

The rank of the parties in this appeal are

¶19

referred in the same rank as referred by the trial Court.

¶20

Heard arguments on complainant/appellant's

¶21

side.

¶22

Perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet pertaining to C.C.No.10740/2014 reveals that the complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act. After taking cognizance, the trial Court registered a case in C.C.No.10740/2014 against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Summons was issued to the accused. In response to summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and was enlarged on bail. The substance of plea was recorded.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46524 CRL.A No. 689 of 2015

¶24

Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the case of the complainant, PW.1 was partly examined. On 22.01.2015 case was posted for further chief of PW.1 and then the case was posted to 31.01.2015. On 31.01.2015, the trial Court passed the impugned order, which reads as under:

¶25

"Case called at 4.00 pm PW1 and his counsel absent. Accused present. In spite of opportunity has been given to the complainant to lead the further chief examination of PW1. But both complainant and counsel absent. Seems that the complainant not interested to prosecute his case in accordance with law. Hence the evidence of PW1 discorded consequently complaint is dismiss for non-prosecution. Since the case is one of for summary trial consequently, accused is acquitted. Close this case."

¶26

5. It is submitted by the complainant/appellant's

¶27

counsel that the non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel before the trial Court on 31.01.2015 is for

¶28

bonafide reason and sought for allow this appeal.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:46524 CRL.A No. 689 of 2015

¶31

The trial Court had given only one opportunity

¶32

to PW.1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶33

case, it is just and proper to provide one more opportunity to the complainant to prosecute this case. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The appeal is allowed ;

¶36

The impugned order dated 31.01.2015 in

¶37

C.C.No.10740/2014 passed by the XXII

¶38

ACMM, Bangalore is hereby set aside;

¶39

C.C.No.10740/2014 shall be restored to its file;

¶40

The complainant/appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on

¶41

17.01.2024 without seeking further notice from the trial Court;

¶42

The trial Court is directed to secure the accused and proceed with the case in accordance with law providing an

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:46524 CRL.A No. 689 of 2015

¶44

¶45

opportunity to the complainant to adduce

¶46

his further evidence;

¶47

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with trial Court records to

¶48

the concerned trial Court.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

PGG

Sri Shivalinga v. Sri J Manju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivalinga v. Sri J Manju

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 Ganeshan, IAS (Rtd) Vs Sri G R Shivashankar

The State of Karnataka Vs H M Shailesh Kumar

Sri M G Bhedre Vs Sri Ajjanagouda Rudragouda Patil

The State of Karnataka Vs Muhammedkunhi.M

Sri K Belliappa Vs Sri K Lokeshappa

The State of Karnataka Vs Nazeer Hussain