Sri. Subhas a. Vs Sri Sukesha Shetty

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49872 CRL.A No. 1641 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1641 OF 2025 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SUBHAS A S/O ANANDA OKKALIGA A. V. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT MUNCIPAL NO.2326/A, NEW NO.26, SECOND FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.

¶9

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M. R., ADV.) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. SUKESHA SHETTY S/O LATE SUDHAKARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 36YEARS R/AT VANASHRI NIVAS, THALAMANE, MUNIYAL, KARKALA TALUK, VARANGA, UDUPI DISTRICT-574108.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. PRATHEEK R. SHETTY, ADV.)

¶14

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419(4) BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXXIII A.C.J.M BENGALURU DATED 23.06.2025 PASSED IN C.C.NO.56213/2023 DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT AND NON PROSECUTION AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:49872 CRL.A No. 1641 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 23.06.2025 passed in CC.No.56213/2023 by the XXXIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short ‘the trial Court’), whereby the case came to be dismissed for default and

¶22

non-prosecution.

¶23

The complainant/appellant has filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After taking cognizance, case was registered in CC.No.56213/2023 and summons was issued. Accused did not appear before the trial Court. Thereafter, NBW was issued. Then accused appeared before the court and enlarged on bail.

¶24

On 19.03.2024 the trial Court has recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial Court has not provided any opportunity to the accused for cross examination and straight away the case was posted for recording of

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:49872 CRL.A No. 1641 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

statement of the accused. On the same day, without providing any opportunity to the accused for crossexamination of PW1, the Court has recorded the statement

¶29

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., which is illegal and not sustainable under law. Thereafter, case was being posted from time-to-time. On 23.06.2025, the court has passed the impugned order. Same reads as under:

¶30

“Case called out at 11 am. No representation. Case called out at 1.50 pm. No representation. Case called out at 3 pm. No representation. Case called out 5.30 pm. No representation. Upon going through the order sheet it appears that the complainant and his counsel have remained absent since longtime without proper representation. Hence the case is dismissed for default and nonprosecution.”

¶31

The order sheet reveals that, many times case was posted for settlement. But the matter was not settled between the parties. On perusal of the order sheet, it is crystal clear that the learned Magistrate has not followed the due procedure in conducting the case. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court is illegal and

¶32