J C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shyju Abraham Thomas

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41277 CRL.A No. 1997 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1997 OF 2024 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

J. C. FLOWERS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., (ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF JCF YES TRUST 2022-23/1), A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND REGISTERED AS AN ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 12^TH FLOOR, CROMPTON GREAVES HOUSE, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400030 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MANIMARAN S.

¶9

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. SUSHANT VENKATESH PAI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHYJU ABRAHAM THOMAS NO. 248, ANNAYYAPPA GARDEN COLONY, NEW THIPPASANDRA NEAR RAGHU MLA HOUSE, BEHIND GANESHA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 075.

¶13

ALSO AT: SHYJU ABRAHAM THOMAS, PALAMKOOTTATHIL BATHEL KADAMMANITTA,

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:41277 CRL.A No. 1997 of 2024

¶15

2 -

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

PO, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 649, PATHANAMTHITTA-659 665, KERALA.

¶18

ALSO AT: SHYJU ABRAHAM THOMAS, HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT. LTD., NO. 59/3, G.R. TECH PARK, AKASH BLOCK, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560 066.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 16.10.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH.)

¶21

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419(4) BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XI A.C.M.M AND ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.7341/2021 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶26

The appellant who is the complainant has filed

¶27

the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The Trial Court

¶28

has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and case came to be

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:41277 CRL.A No. 1997 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

registered in C.C.No.7341/2021. On 19.08.2024, the trial

¶33

Court has passed the following order:

¶34

Complainant present.

¶35

Learned counsel for the complainant prays time to take steps. Sufficient time already granted. Inspite of repeated issuance of NBW, the complainant is not taking steps to secure the accused. In the last date of hearing on the request of complainant, it was ordered to Issue NBW by the hands of complainant which shall be executed through jurisdictional police. Even though the NBW is ready it is not collected and it shows that the complainant is reluctant to take steps. No PF is paid and praying for time to take steps. The case is pending from 2021. Hence, no grounds are made out, prayer rejected. In the result the case is dismissed for default.

¶36

Further, a perusal of the order dated 16.07.2024, it is clear that the complainant has paid PF.

¶37

The trial Court has passed an order of re-issue NBW to the

¶38

accused by hands of the complainant, which shall be executed through the jurisdictional police. When the Court has issued NBW to the accused, the same has to be executed through concerned police. In view of the R ule 8

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41277 CRL.A No. 1997 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

of Chapter 3 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 , all p rocesses shall be served or executed by the

¶42

police, unless the Court which issues the process, otherwise directs. Even if the accused was issued with NBW by the Court, it has to be executed through concerned police. It is not possible to execute non-bailable warrant by the complainant. When the Court has issued NBW to the accused, it is the duty of the concerned police to receive the non-bailable warrant from the Court. The non-collection of the NBW by the complainant is not a genuine ground to dismiss the case. Though the complainant counsel sought time to take steps, the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the complainant, which is not sustainable under law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

i) Appeal is allowed;

¶45

ii) The order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the XI Addl. SCJ and ACMM at Bangalore City in C.C No.7341/2021 is set aside;

¶46