Allowed¶53

Sri Siddalingayya R Hiremath v. Sri Shanmugam S

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2025CRL.A/146/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, CRL.A No.146 of 2025 (G Basavaraja J, 18-11-2025): complainant's appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal of the accused under S.256 Cr.P.C. in C.C No.26541/2018 (complaint under S.200 Cr.P.C r/w S.138 N.I Act, XXII ACMM Bengaluru, order dated 26.07.2022); complainant's non-appearance for cross-examination pleaded bonafide owing to Covid-19 hospital duties; appeal allowed, acquittal order set aside, case restored, parties directed to appear before trial Court on 10.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned acquittal order dated 26.07.2022 in C.C No.26541/2018 set aside; C.C No.26541/2018 restored; both parties directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.12.2025; trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law. ¶53

Sri Siddalingayya R Hiremath Vs Sri Shanmugam S — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of acquittal passed by the XXII ACMM, Bengaluru on 26.07.2022 in C.C No.26541/2018 (under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for the complainant's non-appearance) should be set aside and the case restored for further proceedings against the accused.

¶27

Court's answer

Though the complainant had taken sufficient time and had not appeared for cross-examination, in the interest of justice it is just and proper to provide one more opportunity to the complainant to adduce his evidence.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 26.07.2022 in C.C No.26541/2018 is set aside.

¶57

Key takeaways

C.C No.26541/2018 on the file of the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru shall be restored.ratio¶58
Both parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.12.2025, and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2025 (filed under S.378(4) Cr.P.C.), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (G Basavaraja J), decided 18.11.2025 — Appeal by complainant Siddalingayya R Hiremath against the acquittal of accused Shanmugam S recorded by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru on 26.07.2022 in C.C No.26541/2018, a complaint case under S.200 Cr.P.C r/w S.138 N.I Act — Trial Court had acquitted the accused under S.256 Cr.P.C. as the complainant, though given sufficient opportunities, did not appear for cross-examination — Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant runs Vinayaka Hospital and his non-appearance during Covid-19 was bonafide and not intentional — Held: though the complainant had taken sufficient time and not appeared for cross-examination, in the interest of justice one more opportunity was to be given to him to adduce his evidence — Impugned order set aside; C.C No.26541/2018 restored; both parties directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.12.2025; trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:47255 CRL.A No. 146 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2025 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SIDDALINGAYYA R HIREMATH

¶8

S/O RUDRAIAH HIREMATH

¶9

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶10

R/AT NO. 529, VINAYAKA HOSPITAL 4^TH CROSS, WEAVERS COLONY

¶11

BANNERGHATTA ROAD

¶12

BENGALURU – 560 083.

¶13

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA M, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…APPELLANT

¶17

SRI SHANMUGAM S

¶18

S/O SURESAM

¶19

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶20

R/AT NO.277, PONNASWAMY BUILDING

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47255 CRL.A No. 146 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

LAKSHMISAGAR ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, K.T.LAYOUT, OPP. BALAJI PROVISION STORE, HALECHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN: 560 081.

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI. MANOJ S N, ADVOCATE) (ABSENT)

¶26

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO

¶27

SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY XXII ACMM AT BENGALURU IN CC.NO.26541/2018 DATED 26.07.2022 AND RESTORE THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEED AGAINST THE ACCUSED.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:47255 CRL.A No. 146 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

The appellant has preferred the appeal against the impugned order passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 26.07.2022 in C.C No.26541/2018.

¶35

The complainant/appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 138 of N.I Act. After taking cognizance, case was registered in C.C No.26541/2018. The accused appeared before the Court and substance of plea was recorded. The complainant has adduced his evidence as P.W.1. Thereafter, he remained absent. Hence, on 26.07.2022, the trial Court has passed

¶36

the impugned order, which reads as under:

¶37

“Case called out. Accused present. Complainant absent. No representation. Counsel for complainant also absent.

¶38

“ Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities the complainant is not present before the court for cross Examination. There is no reason for the complainant to show that why he is absent before the court. It shows that he is not interested to proceed with the complaint.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:47255 CRL.A No. 146 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

According to Section 256 of Cr.P.C., if the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused, unless for the reasons he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some another day provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.

¶43

In the case on hand, the accused is regularly present before the Court and the complainant is absent before the Court and the presence of the complainant is very much necessary for the purpose of Cross Examination but he is not present before the court. I do not find any reason to adjourn the case to some other day. Hence, in view of section 256 of Cr.P.C., I hereby pass the following.

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:47255 CRL.A No. 146 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

The accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 138 of NI Act.

¶49

The bail bond of the accused is hereby stands cancelled.”

¶50

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that complainant is running Hospital by name Vinayaka Hospital. During Covid-19, the patients are admitted in the hospital. In severe condition of Covid-19, he cannot leave the hospital. The non-appearance of the complainant was bonafide and not an intentional one. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing this appeal.

¶51

I have examined the entire order sheet. Though, the complainant has taken sufficient time, he has not appeared for cross-examination. However, in the interest of justice, it is just and proper to provide one more opportunity to the complainant to adduce his evidence. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53