Allowed¶28

Kpr Agro Chem Ltd. v. Raju S/O Dharmaji Chavan

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2025CRL.A/100003/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench; CRL.A No. 100003 of 2025; decided 10-01-2025 by Hemant Chandangoudar, J. Section 138 NI Act complaint (CC No.601/2017, Koppal) dismissed for non-prosecution after non-bailable warrants returned unexecuted; complainant's appeal under S.419 BNSS allowed; Magistrate's failure to invoke S.82 CrPC proclamation held to render the dismissal order unsustainable; impugned order dated 19.09.2024 quashed. Keywords: Section 82 CrPC proclamation, NBW unexecuted, dismissal for non-prosecution, quashed, KPR Agro Chem Ltd. v. Raju.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.9.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, in CC No.601/2017 is hereby quashed. ¶28

Kpr Agro Chem Ltd. Vs Raju S/O Dharmaji Chavan — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:384 CRL.A No. 100003 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100003 OF 2025 (A)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KPR AGRO CHEM LTD. (EARLIER IT WAS CALLED KPR FERTILISERS), REGISTERED OFFICE AT 8-256, TATA NAGAR, BALABHARDRAPURAM, DIST: EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRAPRADESH, HAVING ITS MANUFACTURING UNIT AT HALAVARTHI VILLAGE, TQ: KOPPAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA KSVV KRISHNA REDDY S/O SATYANARAYANA REDDY, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: LIASONING OFFICER, R/O: KPR AGRO CHEM LTD., HALAVARTHI, TQ: KOPPAL.

¶7

… APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.13 15:17:06 +0530

¶11

RAJU S/O DHARMAJI CHAVAN, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: M/S DEVI AGENCIES, OPP. APMC YARD, MASUTI BUILDING, INDI ROAD, BIJAPUR.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 419 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL PASSED IN CC NO.601/2017.

¶14

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:384 CRL.A No. 100003 of 2025

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, `the Act’). The learned Magistrate, on 4.8.2017 after taking cognizance of the offence issued summons to the accused and the same was duly served on the accused. Since the respondent- accused remained absent, the learned Magistrate ordered issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused and the same was returned with an endorsement “unexecuted”. On 19.9.2024 once again, the nonbailable warrant was issued and the same was returned with an endorsement “unexecuted” since the accused was not residing at the given address.

¶20

The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution in view of non cooperation of the complainant in securing the presence of the accused since 31.11.2023. Taking exception to the same, the complainant is before this Court.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner complainant submits that the learned Magistrate without providing an opportunity to the complainant to file an application under Section 82 of Cr.PC for issuing proclamation at the very same address to secure presence of the accused has passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is not a speaking order and the same requires to be interfered with.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:384 CRL.A No. 100003 of 2025

¶24

The notice to respondent is dispensed with, since the NBWs issued by the learned Magistrate were not executed and the respondent is not residing in the given address and if the impugned order is interfered with, no prejudice would be caused to him.

¶25

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

Though the summons was initially served on the accused, he did not choose to appear before the learned Magistrate and thereafter non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused on several occasions. However, the said NBWs were returned with an endorsement “unexecuted” stating that the accused is not residing at the given address. Such being the case, the learned Magistrate ought to have exercised the power under Section 82 of the Cr.PC and issued proclamation at the very same address to secure the presence of the accused. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is contrary to Sections 82 of Cr.PC. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i) The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶29

ii) The impugned order dated 19.9.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal, in CC No.601/2017 is hereby quashed.

¶30

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶31

BKM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16

Kpr Agro Chem Ltd. v. Raju S/O Dharmaji Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kpr Agro Chem Ltd. v. Raju S/O Dharmaji Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Transvision Software and Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Harish N v Vs the State by Cbi/Scb/Chennai

B L Shastry Vs the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Sri Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Somanagouda Mahadevagouda Ramanagoudra Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa S/O Hulgappa Vaddar Vs Smt. Devamma W/O Basappa Ilger