Allowed

Sri Ravi v. Smt D Anuradha

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024CRL.A/1218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant's cheque dishonour case was dismissed for non-prosecution while settlement talks were ongoing. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal order, imposed costs for the delay in filing, and restored the complaint to the trial court for decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal order dated 06.03.2018 in C.C.No.20136/2016 set aside; complaint restored; cost of Rs.10,000 payable to accused; parties to appear before trial court on 02.04.2024.

Sri Ravi Vs Smt D Anuradha — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

CRL.A No. 1218 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9924

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1218 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RAVI S/O LATE VENKATAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT BWSSB QUARTERS THIPPAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE THAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. B S NATARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT D ANURADHA W/O ABHIMANI NARENDRA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.01, SRINIVASA NILAYA 17^TH B CROSS, KHB COLONY PAPAIAH GARDEN, BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU - 79

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SANCHAN JAINANDAN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.PC PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DISMISSAL ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20136/2016 DATED 06.03.2018 TO SETTING ASIDE THE SAID ORDER AND RESTORE BY ALLOWING THE PETITION; b) PASS OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS OR RELIEF/S IN THE ABOVE CASE AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

¶18

CRL.A No. 1218 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9924

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint

¶22

filed by him under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument (for short "N.I. Act"), appellant who is complainant has filed this appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

¶23

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

¶24

It is the case of the complainant that he and his

¶25

family members were owning two bits of property measuring 1782 Sq ft. and 250 Sq.ft at Herohalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. They

¶26

offered to sell it. Respondent/accused was interested in purchasing the same and after discussion purchased it for

¶27

Rs.41,41,000/- through Registered sale deed dated 23.04.2016. Respondent/accused issued cheque dated 12.05.2016 for Rs.27,64,000/- towards part of sale

¶28

¶29

CRL.A No. 1218 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9924

¶30

consideration. When presented for realization, it was returned with endorsement "Exceeds arrangement". After issue of legal notice, complaint was filed. Cognizance was taken and respondent/accused appeared and contested the matter. At the stage of evidence, respondent/accused came forward with an offer of settlement. When the settlement talks were going on, the trial Court dismissed the complaint on 06.03.2018. On that day, the accused and counsel representing him were present before the Court. However, they suppressed the fact of settlement and the trial Court dismissed the complaint for nonprosecution. The absence of complainant was not

¶31

intentional. In the above facts and circumstances, it has become necessary to restore the complaint to the file, to enable the complainant to lead evidence. No prejudice would be caused to the accused, as she would get opportunity to defend herself. If the complaint is not restored, complainant would be put to great hardship and hence, the appeal.

¶32

¶33

CRL.A No. 1218 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9924

¶34

After due service of notice, respondent/accused

¶35

has appeared through counsel.

¶36

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶37

Thus, it is the definite case of the complainant

¶38

that accused offered to purchase property belonging to the complainant and issued the subject cheque towards part payment of sale consideration. However, when presented, it came to be dishonoured with endorsement "Exceeds arrangement". After complying with all the requirements, complaint was filed. However, it came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.03.2018. On that day, the complainant did not present himself before the Court as settlement talks were going on. However, the trial Court refused to grant adjournment and dismissed the complaint.

¶39

The cheque amount in question is Rs.27,64,000/-. The order sheet reveal that though cognizance was taken vide order dated 01.09.2016, till 05.10.2017, the presence of accused could be secured. On

¶40

¶41

CRL.A No. 1218 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9924

¶42

that day, accused secured bail, his plea was recorded and

¶43

case was posted for complainant's evidence. Thereafter, four adjournments have been granted and on the fifth hearing date, the complaint is dismissed for nonprosecution. The say of the complainant that after the case was posted for evidence, accused came forward with

¶44

a settlement is not disputed by the accused. Anyhow, having regard to the fact that the cheque amount is Rs.27,64,000/- and the complainant is coming up with a

¶45

plausible explanation for his absence, this Court is of the considered opinion that reasonable opportunity be given to the complainant to prove the allegations against the accused. No prejudice would be caused to the accused. Though the complaint came to be dismissed on 06.03.2018, instead of approaching this Court, the complainant has filed Revision Petition before the Sessions Court and it came to be dismissed on 17.05.2022 as not maintainable. Therefore, there is delay of 1510 days in filing this appeal. For having caused delay and inconvenience to the accused, it is necessary to impose

¶46

¶47

CRL.A No. 1218 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9924

¶48

some cost, which is quantified at Rs.10,000/- and accordingly, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) Appeal is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the accused before the trial Court.

¶51

(ii) The impugned order dated 06.03.2018 passed in C.C.No.20136/2016 on the file of XII ACMM, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶52

(ii) The complainant/appellant and respondent/accused are directed to appear

¶53

before the trial Court on 02.04.2024 without waiting for further notice from the trial Court.

¶54

(iii) The trial Court is directed to decide the case in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to both parties.

¶55

¶56

CRL.A No. 1218 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:9924

¶57

(iv) If on 02.04.2024, respondent/accused fails to appear before the Court, the trial Court is at liberty to take coercive steps against her for securing her presence.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri Ravi v. Smt D Anuradha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravi v. Smt D Anuradha

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

Karnataka Contractors Vs Shri K Suresh

Smt. Leela Ashok Kriplani Vs Sri. Munirathnam N G

Prabhuswamy K S Vs Hemendra

M/S Supraja Souharda Credit Co. Op Ltd. Vs Sri. S Vijay Kumar

M/S Arihant Cabletronics Vs M/S Info Systems Pvt. Ltd.

H C Murali Vs Syed Naveed