M/S. Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs Syam Prakash

M/S. MANAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE AT MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680 567, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR.CHIDANANDA S.G.,

¶10

ALSO HAVING OFFICE AT NO.11/1, BRS ARCADE, 8^TH CROSS STREET, DT STREET, PALACE GUTTAHALLI MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SYAM PRAKASH AT SHEEJA BHAVANAM, PERINAD, VELLIMON WEST B.O., KOLLAM, PERINAD, MANAYATH, KERALA-691 511

¶16

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.09.2024 IN C.C.NO.4178/2020, PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDL. SCJ AND ACJM (SCCH-11) BENGALURU AND RESTORE AND RE-OPEN THE CASE.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:11369 CRL.P No. 3666 of 2025

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶23

Cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was duly taken, and the case was scheduled for a hearing on 27.11.2020. On that date, the trial court directed the registration of a criminal case against the accused and issued summons. Subsequently, the complainant was granted additional time to take steps for issuing notice, and the petitioner consistently took measures to ensure that summons were issued to the accused. The order sheet dated 29.08.2024 indicates that the complainant was present, the processing fee was paid, and summons were subsequently issued to the accused by hand. However, on 27.09.2024, when the complainant appeared, the trial court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution on the grounds that the summons, despite being repeatedly issued, had not been received by the accused, and the complainant had also failed to return the summons.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

The petitioner has consistently taken steps to issue summons; however, despite these efforts, the

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:11369 CRL.P No. 3666 of 2025

¶28

summons have not been served on the accused. This demonstrates the petitioner’s diligence in prosecuting the complaint. The petitioner further undertakes to take immediate steps to issue notice to the accused on the next date of hearing. It is submitted that if the complaint is not restored, the petitioner will suffer monetary loss upon succeeding at trial, whereas no prejudice will be caused to the accused if the complaint is restored.

¶29

5. Accordingly, the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶32

(ii) The impugned order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the I Additional Small Cause Judge and ACJM (SCCH-11), Bengaluru in C.C.No.4178/2020 is hereby set aside and the complaint is restored to its file.

¶33

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

MEG

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90

M/S. Manappuram Finance Limited, v. Syam Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Manappuram Finance Limited, v. Syam Prakash

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

Madhavan Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Dr Shilpa Gupta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Preetha Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Yogesh Vs State by Basaweshwaranagar Ps

M R Chowdaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sandeep Shetty Vs State of Karnataka