Allowed¶42

Smt N Shantha v. Smt Chennamma

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025CRL.A/768/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.A No. 768 of 2025; Justice G Basavaraja; decided 10.10.2025; restoration of Section 138 NI Act complaint dismissed for non-prosecution; C.C.No.27495/2022; 12th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Bangalore; order dated 26.11.2024 set aside; appeal under S.378(4) Cr.PC / S.419(4) BNSS; complainant's absence explained; respondent served and unrepresented; matter remitted; appearance directed on 04.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; order dated 26.11.2024 of the 12th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore set aside; C.C.No.27495/2022 restored; matter remitted to enable the complainant to take necessary steps against the accused; complainant to appear before the trial court on 04.11.2025 without seeking notice; Registry to send a copy of the order with trial court records to the concerned court.

Smt N Shantha Vs Smt Chennamma — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 26.11.2024 of the 12th A.C.J.M Court, Bengaluru dismissing C.C.No.27495/2022 (offences under Section 138, N.I Act) for non-prosecution should be set aside and the complaint restored, in view of the appellant-complainant's explanation for her absence.

¶22

Court's answer

Accepting the reasons assigned by learned counsel for the appellant for the complainant's absence, the Court proceeded to allow the appeal; the respondent, though served, remained absent and unrepresented.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the 12th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution is set aside.

¶43

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted to the trial court to provide the complainant an opportunity to take necessary steps against the accused, and C.C.No.27495/2022 on the file of the 12th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate is restored; the trial court shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law.ratio¶44
The complainant is directed to appear before the trial court on 04.11.2025 without seeking any notice from the trial court.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.378(4) Cr.PC (filed as S.419(4) BNSS) by the complainant against the order dated 26.11.2024 of the 12th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru dismissing her complaint C.C.No.27495/2022 (offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act) for non-prosecution owing to her absence and lack of representation. The respondent, though served, was absent and unrepresented. Accepting the appellant's explanation that she could not attend as she was held up at Raichur attending her daughter-in-law who had delivered a baby, and noting that she had taken coercive steps to secure the respondent, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal order, remitted the matter to the trial court to permit the complainant to take necessary steps against the accused, restored C.C.No.27495/2022, and directed the complainant to appear before the trial court on 04.11.2025 without seeking notice.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40271 CRL.A No. 768 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.768 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT N SHANTHA W/O C.RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.28, 1 CROSS, NEAR KRISHNA TEMPLE, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 097.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT CHENNAMMA W/O R. JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.01, 1ST FLOOR, SLV SOWMYA SHREE RESIDENCY, OPP. TO GARUDA ROYAL, SHARDA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 013. AND ALSO AT

¶16

DURGAMBA TENT HOUSE, NO.527, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NEAR SAI TEMPLE, MUTHYALANAGAR, MES ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(RESPONDENT SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:40271 CRL.A No. 768 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419(4) BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2024 PASSED BY THE 12TH A.C.J.M COURT AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.27495/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT DIRECT THE 12TH A.C.M.M COURT AT BENGALURU TO RESTORE THE COMPLAINT TO ITS ORIGINAL STAGE AND ETC.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials placed on record.

¶27

The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the 12^th Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore dated 26.11.2024 in C.C.No.27495/2022 as the Trial Court has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.

¶28

The impugned order reads as under:

¶29

"Complainant is absent. No representation.

¶30

Case once again called at 3.10 p.m. No representation. Hand summons issued by this court is not received by the complainant. For steps finally and last chance, by 26.11.2024.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:40271 CRL.A No. 768 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Complainant is absent. No representation. Case once again called at 1.45 p.m. No representation. Case once again called at 4.00 p.m. No representation. From the order sheet it goes to show that, there is no representation for the Complainant from the beginning of this case. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity till date there is no representation for the Complainant. It appears that, the complainant is not interested in proceeding with this case. Hence complaint is dismissed for Non prosecution."

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant could not appear before the trial court on 26.11.2024, and was held up at Raichur as her daughter-in-law delivered the baby and had been to her son's place in order to nourish the child and to take care her daughter-in-law. Hence, the appellant could not be personally present on the date of hearing. Learned counsel for the appellant was taking effective steps in order to bring the respondent before the court below. On all the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:40271 CRL.A No. 768 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

occasions, the appellant had taken coercive steps to secure the respondent. However, the trial court has dismissed the complaint.

¶40

Despite service of notice, respondent remained absent and unrepresented. Hence, accepting the reasons assigned by the learned counsel for the appellant, I proceed to pass the following;

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The appeal is allowed .

¶43

(ii) The order passed by the 12^th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore dated 26.11.2024, is hereby set aside.

¶44

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court to provide an opportunity to the complainant to take necessary steps against the accused. Thereafter, the trial court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. Accordingly, C.C.No.27495/2022 on the file of 12^th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, is restored.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:40271 CRL.A No. 768 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48