Allowed¶42

J C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinod N

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025CRL.A/2017/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act complaint dismissed for default over non-collection/execution of NBW; Rule 8 Chapter 3 Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice 1968 — warrants served/executed by police, not complainant; dismissal held unsustainable; restoration of C.C.No.7351/2021; CRL.A No. 2017 of 2024; Justice G Basavaraja; decided 15.10.2025; Karnataka High Court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; order dated 19.08.2024 passed in C.C.No.7351/2021 set aside; the case restored to the file of the XI Addl. SCJ and ACMM at Bangalore City; Trial Court directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law; complainant directed to appear before the Trial Court on 18.11.2025 without seeking any further notice; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the Trial Court. ¶42

J C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's dismissal for default of the Section 138 NI Act complaint (C.C.No.7351/2021) — premised on the complainant's failure to collect and execute the NBW to secure the accused — was legally sustainable, given that NBWs are executable only through the police.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Under Rule 8 of Chapter 3 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, all processes are to be served or executed by the police unless the issuing Court otherwise directs; an NBW issued by the Court has to be executed through the concerned police and cannot be executed by the complainant, whose duty it is not — it is the duty of the concerned police to receive the NBW from the Court.

¶35

Key takeaways

The non-collection of the NBW by the complainant is not a genuine ground to dismiss the case.ratio¶35
The learned Magistrate's rejection of the complainant counsel's prayer for time to take steps was not sustainable under law.ratio¶35
Contrary to the Trial Court's observation in the impugned order that no PF was paid, the complainant had in fact paid the PF, as borne out by the Trial Court's order dated 16.07.2024.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. (S.419(4) BNSS) by the complainant, J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd., against dismissal for default of its Section 138 NI Act complaint (C.C.No.7351/2021) by the learned XIX Addl. CMM and Addl. Small Causes Judge, City Civil Court, Bengaluru, on the ground that the complainant repeatedly failed to collect and execute the non-bailable warrant to secure the accused. Held: under Rule 8, Chapter 3, Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, all processes are to be served or executed by the police; an NBW issued by the Court cannot be executed by the complainant, and it is the duty of the concerned police to receive it from the Court; the non-collection of the NBW by the complainant is not a genuine ground to dismiss the case, and rejection of the prayer for time to take steps was unsustainable — especially since the complainant had already paid PF (order dated 16.07.2024). Appeal allowed; order dated 19.08.2024 set aside; C.C.No.7351/2021 restored; Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law; complainant to appear on 18.11.2025 without further notice.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40955 CRL.A No. 2017 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2017 OF 2024 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

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

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

VINOD N. NO.41, MUNIGA LAYOUT NEAR MUKUNDA TALKIES, MARUTHI SEVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560033 ALSO AT: VINOD N. ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:40955 CRL.A No. 2017 of 2024

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

MARATHAHALLI, KADUBEESANAHALLI, PRESTIGE TECH PARK, VENUS BLOCK, OUTER RING ROAD BANGALORE - 560037.

¶17

…RESPONDENT (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 15.10.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH.)

¶18

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419(4) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIX ADDL. CMM AND ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU (SCCH-17) IN C.C.NO.7351/2021 AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶23

The appellant who is the complainant has filed

¶24

the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The Trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and case came to be registered in C.C.No.7 351 /2021. On 19.08.2024, the trial Court has passed the following order:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:40955 CRL.A No. 2017 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

" Complainant present.

¶29

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."

¶30

Further, a perusal of the order dated

¶31

16.07.2024, it is clear that the complainant has paid PF.

¶32

The trial Court has passed an order of re-issue NBW to the 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 of Chapter 3 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 , all p rocesses shall be served or executed by the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40955 CRL.A No. 2017 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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:

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

i) Appeal is allowed ;

¶38

ii) The order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the XI Addl. SCJ and ACMM at Bangalore City in C.C No.7 351 /2021 is set aside;

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:40955 CRL.A No. 2017 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42