Allowed

H Raju Naik v. Stanly John

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024CRL.P/5950/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging dismissal of a complaint for non-prosecution filed to implement a Labour Court order. Court found complainant absent only on few occasions, set aside the dismissal and restored the complaint, directing evidence be adduced on a fixed date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned dismissal order set aside; complaint restored to file with direction to appear and adduce evidence.

H Raju Naik Vs Stanly John — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19332 CRL.P No. 5950 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5950 OF 2018 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H RAJU NAIK S/O MR.HALA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, SHANTHI NIVASA

¶9

1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, KANAKA NAGARA, KHB MAIN ROAD, R.T.NAGARA POST, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR BHAT.A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STANLY JOHN

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, KADUGONDANAHALLI,

¶15

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BENGALURU-560 045.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. HARISH H V., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE 11^TH ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE DATED 06.03.2018, DISMISSING THE CASE IN C.C.NO.24061/2012, FOR NON PROSUCUTION VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND RESTORE THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.24061/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 11^TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:19332 CRL.P No. 5950 of 2018

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed challenging an order, by which, the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed for non-prosecution. The Trial Court has noticed that, though sufficient time was granted to adduce evidence, the complainant had not appeared to adduce his evidence and therefore came to the conclusion that he was not interested to prosecute the case.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the complainant was present all along and only on two occasions he was absent.

¶26

The complaint is filed to implement the order passed by the Labour Court and in this view of the matter, it would be improper to sustain the order dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution especially when it is seen that the petitioner was absent only on a few occasions.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19332 CRL.P No. 5950 of 2018

¶28

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is restored to file. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 01.07.2024 and ensure that he adduces evidence on that day itself without seeking for any adjournment. The Trial Court shall thereafter proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶29

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed .

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

GSR

¶32

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

H Raju Naik v. Stanly John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H Raju Naik v. Stanly John

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

Shri. G. Nagarayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt a R Thejavathi Vs a L Umesh

Vishwanatha Gowda P Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt P Lathashyamaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Eshwarappa C Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Azara Ismail Vs a S R Exports Pvt. Ltd.