Allowed

Sri Makthar Ahmed Baig v. Sri. Mallikarjuna Raju

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024CRL.P/3803/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the impugned order dismissing a private complaint for non-appearance was illegal. The Court observed that the Magistrate ought to have issued a notice to the complainant given court closures during the COVID-19 lockdown before dismissing the case.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the complaint dated 19.03.2022 in PCR No.13173/2020 is set aside and the complaint is restored to the file.

Sri Makthar Ahmed Baig Vs Sri. Mallikarjuna… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8865 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3803 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MAKTHAR AHMED BAIG AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O MR. A. KHADER BAIG, R/AT NO.18, 6^TH CROSS, NANDIDURGA EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 046.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANDANAPPA GURAPPA BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. MALLIKARJUNA RAJU

¶13

S/O M. BHAKTAVATHSALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SMT. THANUJA W/O MALLIKARJUNA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶16

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.107, 2^ND CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SHRIRAMAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 021.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

( NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 04/03/2024)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2022 IN PCR NO.13173/2020 ON THE FILE OF VIII TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE REGISTERED IN PURSUANCE OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 420, 468, 467 AND 506 OF IPC.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:8865 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2022

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order of dismissal of the complaint by invoking the provision under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. for non prosecution.

¶25

Issuance of notice to respondents is hereby dispensed

¶26

with as no cognizance taken against the respondents.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed complaint against the respondents before the Police and the Police have not taken action. Therefore, he approached the Additional Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, they have also not taken any action, therefore he has filed private complaint in PCR No.13173/2020 and requested the Court to refer the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, due to

¶29

the COVID-19 lockdown, the Courts were not functioning and later the petitioner was not able to appear before the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:8865 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2022

¶32

Magistrate and hence, the complaint was dismissed for non prosecution. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, which reveals, of course, there was COVID-19 lockdown and subsequently, the Courts were started opening from October 2021 onwards. The petitioner was not appeared for almost three dates. Subsequently on 19.03.2022, there was no representation, hence, the complaint came to be dismissed for non prosecution for non appearance of the complainant. On perusal of the same, though there was an allegation made against the respondents by the petitioner, the Magistrate required to consider as to whether the matter is required to refer to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. or for taking cognizance and post the matter for sworn statement and the same was not considered. Of course, the Magistrate has power to dismiss the complaint for non appearance of the complainant as per Section 256 of Cr.P.C., however, it should not be forgotten that the Courts were closed during the year 2020 - 2021 due to COVID-19 lockdown. Such being the case, before dismissing the complaint, the Magistrate ought to have issued a Court notice to the complainant and after that, could have

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:8865 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2022

¶36

passed the order, but without doing so, dismissing the complaint for non prosecution is not correct. Hence, the said order is liable to be set aside.

¶37

5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶38

The order of dismissal of the complaint dated 19.03.2022 in PCR No.13173/2020 on the file of VIII Additional CMM, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and the complaint to be restored to the file and proceed in accordance with law.

¶39

The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate or Trial

¶40

Court without any further notice by 26.03.2024.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:SK

Sri Makthar Ahmed Baig v. Sri. Mallikarjuna Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Makthar Ahmed Baig v. Sri. Mallikarjuna Raju

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

Manjunatha B J Vs State by

D Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Isak Alias Ichu Vs the State

Sri Praveen Jain Vs State by Basavanagudi Police

Rohith Kumar Y Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Latharaghavan Vs State by Malleshwaram Police Station