Allowed

Sri. H Nagesh Rao v. Sri. Prarvathaneneni Venkateshwara Rao

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2025CRL.A/944/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal for non-prosecution of a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 NI Act. The High Court held one more opportunity was warranted and allowed restoration on payment of costs to the legal services authority.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal order dated 07.12.2022 in C.C.No.24609/2021 set aside on payment of Rs.10,000/- cost to Karnataka State Legal Services Authority; complaint restored for trial.

Sri. H Nagesh Rao Vs Sri. Prarvathaneneni Venkateshwara Rao — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25339 CRL.A No. 944 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 944 OF 2023 (A)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. H NAGESH RAO SON OF LATE HANUMANTH RA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO 1/1, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI, 6^TH STAGE, BENGALURU 560 075. …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B G., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. PRARVATHANENENI VENKATESHWARA RAO S/O PARVATHANENI SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, GRANDSON OF PARVATHANENI BHADRAYYA, R/ AT NO 1-12, PEDAVEGI MANDALAM, PEDAKADIMI POST, ELLUR TALUK, WEST GODHAVARI DISRICT-534 003, ANDHRA PRADESH. …RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.PC PRAYING TO ADMIT THE CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIMINAL CASE IN C.C.NO.24609/2021 ON ITS ORIGINAL FILE PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVI A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2022 WHEREIN C.C.NO.24609/2021 IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION.

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25339 CRL.A No. 944 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2022 in C.C No.24609/2021 pending on the file of XVI ACMM, Bengaluru.

¶21

The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience.

¶22

Factual matrix of the case are as under:

¶23

The appellant is the Supplier of maize by occupation. He used to supply the maize to the poultry farms around the villages of Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District for several years. The accused is well known to the complainant for the past five years. The accused was running a poultry farm in the name and style as “Sri Sai Muruthy Poultry Farm”, Adura Village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. The complainant is stated to have supplied 54 tons of maize at different rates on different dates as per the demand of the accused for a total sum of Rs.13,39,568/-.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25339 CRL.A No. 944 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

The complainant even though insisted the accused to repay the amount, he did not repay the said amount. The accused executed a Memorandum of Understanding on 17.01.2020 wherein he acknowledged the debt and sought one month time to repay the same and postponed the same on one or the other context.

¶27

On continuous demand made by the complainant, it is stated that the accused had finally, issued ten cheques towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The complainant presented those cheques for encashment however, the same were returned with shara as “Funds Insufficient”. A legal notice was issued through RPAD on 08.08.2020 calling upon the accused to repay the said amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate seeking for action to be taken against the appellant.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:25339 CRL.A No. 944 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The Trial Court on 07.12.2022, dismissed the complaint for default without giving a sufficient opportunity to take necessary steps. Therefore, the appellant filed this appeal seeking for restoration of the complaint.

¶32

On perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court, it appears that the complaint came to be registered by the complainant. Initially, cognizance was taken and thereafter, the criminal case has been registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the matter was adjourned to 13.12.2021. On 13.12.2021 summons to the accused was ordered, in case PF is paid. Again on 10.02.2022, as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was posted to 16.04.2022. On the next date of hearing, the case was called and it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶33

Considering the averments of the complaint and also the manner of which the said transaction had taken place between the complainant and the accused, it is appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:25339 CRL.A No. 944 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

appellant on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,

¶38

Bengaluru.

¶39

In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶42

ii. The order dated 07.12.2022 is set aside on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.

¶43

iii. The Trial Court is directed to restore the Trial Court record and proceed in accordance with law.

¶44

iv. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court forthwith.

¶45

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri. H Nagesh Rao v. Sri. Prarvathaneneni Venkateshwara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H Nagesh Rao v. Sri. Prarvathaneneni Venkateshwara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nagaveni Vs Smt. Ujwala M Rokade

Asha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivakanth Vs the State of Karnataka

M Narayana Reddy Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

Dr H K Nagaraj Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

Sri Srikanth B Vs Sri G N Manjunath