Allowed¶44

Inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Apara Enterprise Solutions Private Limited

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2025CRL.A/1923/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CRL.A No. 1923 of 2022, decided 21.02.2025 by Justice Shivashankar Amaranannavar — restoration of a Section 138 N.I.Act complaint (C.C.No.51873/2013, LVII ACMM Bengaluru) dismissed for default for non-collection of N.B.W; process fee paid on 11.12.2017; dishonour of six cheques totalling Rs.1,80,90,543/-; appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C allowed; dismissal dated 02.02.2018 set aside; appearance directed on 26.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order dated 02.02.2018 passed in C.C.No.51873/2013 by the LVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru set aside; C.C.No.51873/2013 ordered to be restored; appellant and respondents directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.03.2025 without awaiting any Court notice. ¶44

Inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Apara Enterprise… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7822 CRL.A No. 1923 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1923 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

INFLOW TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ”INFLOW HOUSE”, NO.33 AND 34 INDIRANAGAR 1^ST STAGE OFF 100 FEET ROAD BANGALORE-560 038 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD OF CREDIT SERVICES AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. E.C. PRAVEEN REDDY

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SATCHIDANANDA R. JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. KIRAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

APARA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED UNIT-2, LOWER LEVEL GROUND FLOOR NO.139, OXFORD TOWERS KODIHALLI, AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE-560 017 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. MANPREET SINGH SIDHU ALSO AT APARA ENTERPRISE SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED NO.7, 1^ST CROSS 3^RD MAIN, ASHWINI LAYOUT, EJIPURA BANGALORE-560 047

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7822 CRL.A No. 1923 of 2022

¶15

SRI. MANPREET SINGH SIDHU MAJOR 17, GRACE VILLA, 5^TH MAIN SANTRUPTI LAYOUT KOTHANUR DINNE J.P.NAGAR 7^TH PHASE BANGALORE-560 078

¶16

ALSO AT NO.1, GRACE VILLA 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SANTRUPTI NAGAR J.P.NAGAR, 7^TH PHASE BANGALORE-560 078

¶17

SMT VIDYALAKSHMI SIDHU MAJOR 17, GRACE VILLA, 5^TH MAIN SANTRUPTI LAYOUT KOTHANUR DINNE J.P.NAGAR 7^TH PHASE BANGALORE-560 078

¶18

ALSO AT NO.1, GRACE VILLA 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SANTRUPTI NAGAR J.P.NAGAR, 7^TH PHASE BANGALORE-560 078

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SANJEEVINI V.H, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.51873/2013 DATED 02.02.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED AS PRAYED IN THE COMPLAINANT.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶23

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7822 CRL.A No. 1923 of 2022

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the appellant – complainant praying to set-aside the order dated 02.02.2018 passed in C.C.No.51873/2013 by the LVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶29

The appellant – complainant had initiated the proceedings against the respondents for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as “N.I.Act”) and a case has

¶30

been registered against the respondents in C.C.No.51873/2013 pending on the file of the LVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The said case was listed on 11.12.2017. On that day, the complainant’s counsel paid the process fee and the learned Magistrate has ordered issuance of the N.B.W by hand and posted the case to 02.02.2018. On 02.02.2018, the

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7822 CRL.A No. 1923 of 2022

¶32

learned Magistrate noting that the N.B.W has not been taken from the file, noting the absence of the complainant on several dates has dismissed the complaint for default. The said order has been challenged by the complainant in this appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the complainant had paid the process fee and the N.B.W has been issued to the respondent – accused. The said N.B.W has not been collected by the complainant and noting the same, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint. He further submits that it is the duty of the police to execute the N.B.W. Merely because the complainant has not collected the N.B.W on a single occasion, the complaint ought not to have dismissed the case, as the case involves dishonour of six cheques and total amount of all the cheques is Rs.1,80,90,543/-. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and restore the said

¶34

criminal case.

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7822 CRL.A No. 1923 of 2022

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent would contend

¶37

that the summons to the accused has not been served. The accused were not aware of any case pending against them. With this, she prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the material placed on record.

¶39

The case registered against the respondent – accused was pending in C.C.No.51873/2013 on the file of

¶40

the LVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The N.B.W has been issued to the respondent – accused persons on 11.12.2017. The complainant’s counsel has paid the process fee and the learned Magistrate has ordered issuance on the N.B.W to the accused by hand and ordered to list the matter on 02.02.2018. On 02.02.2018, the learned Magistrate noting the absence of the complainant and that the N.B.W has not been taken from the file, has dismissed the complaint for default. Merely because the complainant has not collected the N.B.W on one occasion, the learned

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7822 CRL.A No. 1923 of 2022

¶42

Magistrate ought to have granted an opportunity to the complainant, since the total value of the cheques involved in the case is Rs.1,80,90,543/-. Considering the above aspects, the appellant has made out a case for setting aside the impugned order and restoration of the said case. In the result, the following;

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 02.02.2018 passed in C.C.No.51873/2013 by the LVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is set-aside. C.C.No.51873/2013 is ordered to be restored.

¶45

The appellant and the respondents are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.03.2025, without awaiting any

¶46

Court notice.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶49

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Apara Enterprise Solutions Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inflow Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Apara Enterprise Solutions Private Limited

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

Sri N M Rajashekaraiah Vs Smt a D Girijamma

M/S Span Aquatic Products Vs M/S Nexus Feeds Ltd.

Shekar @ Guna Shekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pooja Narasimha Hegde Vs Yajaman Developers

Sri K v Prasad Vs I-Spatial Communications (P) Ltd.

S R Manjunath Vs Shabbir Ahamed