Sri M Goutamchand Vs Sri Sridhar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri M Goutamchand Vs Sri Sridhar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; order dated 21.01.2017 passed by the XXI ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.11842/2016 set aside and C.C.No.11842/2016 restored; complainant/appellant directed to appear before the Trial Court on 03.12.2025 without seeking any further notice; Trial Court directed to take necessary steps to secure the accused in accordance with law and not to insist on payment of process fee (already paid several times); Registry directed to send copy of the order to the Trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 21.01.2017 dismissing C.C.No.11842/2016 (Section 138 NI Act complaint) for non-prosecution was sustainable in law, given that the complainant had paid process fee and taken steps for issuance/execution of the NBW against the accused.

Court's answer

Once an NBW is issued against the accused, it is the duty of the Court to see that the NBW is executed; if it is not executed, the Court has to call for a report from the concerned Police and thereupon pass suitable orders (duty spelt out at ¶32, conclusion at ¶35).

Ratio / Principle

The complainant had paid the process fee (order sheets dated 08.07.2016, 27.07.2016, 02.09.2016 and 19.09.2016) and had taken steps for issuance of NBW from time to time, which the Trial Court ignored in mechanically passing the dismissal order.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court's order dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution although the complainant had taken steps is apparently illegal, perverse and not sustainable in law, and cannot stand.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRL.A No. 697 of 2024, decided 07.11.2025, G Basavaraja J) filed under SECTION.482 CR.P.C — Complaint under S.138 NI Act (C.C.No.11842/2016, arising from PCR No.3944/2016) dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.01.2017 by the XXI ACMM, Bangalore after recording 'complainant absent, kept by' and 'Steps not taken inspite of sufficient opportunity given', while the NBW against the accused lay unexecuted — Held: once an NBW is issued against the accused, it is the Court's duty to see that it is executed and, if not executed, to call for a report from the concerned Police and pass suitable orders; the complainant had paid process fee (order sheets dated 08.07.2016, 27.07.2016, 02.09.2016 and 19.09.2016) and repeatedly taken steps for issuance of NBW, which the Trial Court ignored — dismissal held 'apparently illegal, perverse and not sustainable in law' — Appeal allowed; dismissal order set aside and complaint restored; complainant to appear before the Trial Court on 03.12.2025 without fresh notice; Trial Court not to insist on process fee and to secure the accused in accordance with law; Registry to send copy of the order to the Trial Court. (Respondent: Sridhar Staff Training College Faculty Department, Pune; notice to respondent dispensed with v/o 07.11.2025.)

NC: 2025:KHC:45113 CRL.A No. 697 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 697 OF 2024 (A)

BETWEEN:

SRI M GOUTAMCHAND S/O SRI MOTILAL AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.41,N.K. PALYA 1ST CROSS, A STREET SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 051

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI.MADURAJA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RENY SEBASTIAN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI SRIDHAR STAFF TRAINING COLLEGE Digitally signed by FACULTY DEPARTMENT HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH 11TH A LANE, PRABHAT ROAD COURTOF PUNE 411 004. KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT

(V/O DATED: 07.11.2025 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2017 PASSED BY THE XXI ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.11842/2016 DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER FOR NON-PROSECUTION AND TO RESTORE THE SAME.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45113 CRL.A No. 697 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal

against the impugned order of dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution dated 21.01.2017 in C.C.No.11842/2016 on the file of the XXI ACMM, Bangalore.

The brief facts leading to this appeal is that the complainant/appellant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Trial Court. The case was registered in PCR No.3944/2016. After sworn statement, the case was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.No.11842/2016 and summons was issued to the accused. Accused had refused the summons. Hence, the service was held sufficient. Then, a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued to the

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45113 CRL.A No. 697 of 2024

HC-KAR

accused. NBW was not returned. Thereafter, the case was posted from time to time till 21.01.2017. That, on 21.01.2017, the trial Court has passed an order as ‘complainant absent, kept by’ and again it has passed an order as under:

“Called on again at 5.30 pm.

Steps not taken inspite of sufficient opportunity given. Hence the complaint is dismissed for nonprosecution.” .

A perusal of the order sheet dated 08.07.2016,

27.07.2016, 02.09.2016, 19.09.2016, the complainant has

paid the process fee. Though, the complainant has taken steps for issuance of NBW from time to time, the Trial Court has ignored the same and mechanically passed the order. Once, the NBW is issued against the accused, it is the duty of the Court to see that whether NBW is executed or not. If the NBW is not executed, the Court has to call for a report from the concerned Police. Thereafter, the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45113 CRL.A No. 697 of 2024

HC-KAR

Court has to pass suitable orders. Instead of that, in the case on hand, though the complainant has taken steps, the Trial Court has blindly passed an order that complainant has not taken steps, which is apparently illegal, perverse and not sustainable in law.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

a) The appeal is allowed .

b) The order passed by the XXI ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.11842/2016 dated 21.01.2017 is set aside and C.C.No.11842/2016 shall be restored.

c) The complainant/appellant is directed to appear before the Trial Court without seeking any further notice on 03.12.2025 .

NC: 2025:KHC:45113 CRL.A No. 697 of 2024

5 -

HC-KAR

d) The Trial Court is directed to take

necessary steps to secure the accused, in accordance with law.

e) It is made clear that the Trial Court shall

not insist for payment of process fee as the complainant has already paid the process fee on several times.

f) Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the Trial Court for taking necessary steps and to proceed with the case, in accordance with law.

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA)

JUDGE

DM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1