Allowed

Smt Sujatha v. Sri Srinivas

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024CRL.A/1754/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant's cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed by the trial court for non-prosecution after she failed to lead evidence due to illness and the COVID-19 pandemic. The High Court allowed her appeal, set aside the dismissal, and remitted the matter for trial with directions to both parties to appear.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; order dated 17.12.2021 in C.C.No.466/2018 set aside; parties directed to appear before trial court on 15.04.2024.

Smt Sujatha Vs Sri Srinivas — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - CRL.A No.1754 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:11855

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1754 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. SUJATHA W/O R.NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. KUMBARPET MALUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

¶7

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶8

(BY SRI. ANAND R.V, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

SRI. SRINIVAS S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. PURASANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTICT - 563 130.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALUR IN C.C.NO.466/2018 DATED 17.12.2021 IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT TO THE 138 OF N.I. ACT; b) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶14

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

¶15

2 - CRL.A No.1754 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:11855

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

It is the case of the complainant that she and

¶21

accused are known to each other for several years. At the request of accused, she has lent hand loan of Rs.4 lakhs. In this regard accused issued a cheque for Rs.4 lakhs. However, when presented for encashment, it was dishounoured as "Funds insufficient". After issuing legal notice and on failure of accused to pay the amount due under the cheque, complaint is filed.

¶22

3 - CRL.A No.1754 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:11855

¶23

After due service of summons, accused

¶24

appeared before the trial Court and secured bail. He contested the matter by pleading not guilty and the case was posted for complainant's evidence.

¶25

Complainant is aged 52 years. Due to ill health complainant was not able to appear before the Court and give evidence on 09.04.2019, 24.05.2019, 21.03.2020 and 22.10.2021. During this period complainant was suffering from C4-C5 Disc prolapse with severe cord compression HTN. Due to COVID-19 Pandemic also she was unable to appear. From 23.04.2021 to 26.04.2021 & 05.09.2022 and 06.09.2022, complainant was admitted to Sri Sai Hospital, Bengaluru for taking treatment of C4-C5 Disc prolapse with severe cord compression HTN. However, on 17.12.2021, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. The non-appearance of complainant was not intentional. She is having a good case on merit and hence, the appeal.

¶26

¶27

CRL.A No.1754 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:11855

¶28

6. After due service of notice, respondent/accused

¶29

has appeared through counsel and contested the matter.

¶30

Heard and perused the record.

¶31

Thus, complainant prosecuted the accused on

¶32

the allegations that the cheque issued by him towards repayment of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs came to be dishonoured for funds insufficient and despite due service of legal notice, accused failed to repay the same. However, the trial Court dismissed the complaint on 17.12.2021, on the ground that complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint, as she has failed to lead evidence despite granting several adjournments.

¶33

According to the complainant during the relevant point of time she was under treatment and on account of COVID-19 also, she could not prosecute the complaint. To evidence the said fact, complainant has produced photocopies of cash bills and prescription. The documents produced by the complainant prove that she was suffering from C4-C5 Disc prolapse with severe cord

¶34

5 - CRL.A No.1754 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:11855

¶35

compression HTN. The complaint is not decided on merit. In the circumstances, the complainant deserves one more opportunity to prove the allegations against accused. It would not cause any prejudice to the accused as he would get an opportunity to defend himself and accordingly, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) Appeal is allowed.

¶38

(ii) The impugned order dated 17.12.2021 passed in C.C.No.466/2018 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC., Malur is set aside.

¶39

(ii) Both the complainant and accused are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.04.2024 without waiting for further notice from the trial Court.

¶40

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

¶41

6 - CRL.A No.1754 of 2022 NC: 2024:KHC:11855

¶42

(iv) Of course, if on 15.04.2024,

¶43

respondent/accused fails to appear before the Court, the trial Court is at liberty to take coercive steps against him for

¶44

securing his presence.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt Sujatha v. Sri Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sujatha v. Sri Srinivas

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

Mr Krishna Murthy D Vs Mr R Thimmaiah

Smt. Sridevi (Bhuvaneshvari) Vs N R Ramesh Babu

Sri R Narayanappa Vs Sri Srinivasa

Bhaskar Reddy Vs Roshini

Smt Nirmala S Ramadurga Vs Sri Gurupadayya G Hiremath

Corporation Bank Vs Leena D Souza