Mr Kavil K N v. Mr Sunil Kumar K R

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2025WP/4391/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 4391 of 2025 (GM-RES); Justice Hemant Chandangoudar; order dated 06-03-2025. Restoration of cheque-bounce (S.138 NI Act) complaint dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.03.2024 by XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.13741/2020; writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 Constitution r/w S.482 Cr.P.C.; Covid-19 adjournments; Lok Adalat reference dated 11.05.2022; complainant's failure to take steps for notice to accused; communication gap between complainant and counsel; no prejudice to accused; complaint restored to original file. No precedent cases cited; no quantum stated.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.03.2024 set aside and the complaint restored to the file of the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. ¶¶25

Mr Kavil K N Vs Mr Sunil Kumar K R — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 22.03.2024 set aside and the complaint restored to the file of the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22-03-2024 of the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution should be set aside and the complaint restored to its original file.

¶¶13

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.13741/2020 is set aside and the complaint is restored to the trial Court's file.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

Failure to restore the complaint would unjustly deprive the complainant of his valuable right to recover the money under the subject cheque and would result in monetary loss if he were to succeed in the case.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

Restoration of the complaint will not cause any prejudice to the accused.ratio¶¶19
Cautionary direction: in the event the complainant fails to take steps from the next date of hearing, the trial Court is to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.obiter¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution r/w S.482 Cr.P.C. — Complainant in a S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act case sought restoration of his private complaint (C.C.No.13741/2020, XXII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru), which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.03.2024 after repeated adjournments during the Covid-19 pandemic, a Lok Adalat reference on 11.05.2022, and the complainant's failure to take steps for issuing notice to the accused. Held: non-restoration would unjustly deprive the complainant of his valuable right to recover the money under the subject cheque and cause monetary loss, while restoration causes no prejudice to the accused; despite sufficient opportunity, the lapse was attributed to a communication gap between complainant and counsel. Impugned order dated 22.03.2024 set aside and complaint restored to file, with a caution that failure to take steps from the next date of hearing would invite appropriate orders by the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9771 WP No. 4391 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 4391 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. KAVIL K.N, SON OF NANDKUMAR K.N, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 4703, TOWER 4, 7TH FLOOR, DHAMMANAGI SUMO LEAVES APARTMENT, NEAR KSIT COLLEGE, RAGHUVANAHALLI CITY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARADI S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR. SUNIL KUMAR K.R, SON OF K.J. RANGANATH, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.384, 1ST A CROSS, SHAKTI GANAPATI NAGAR, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22-03-2024 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN CC NO.13741/2929 AND ORDER RESTORATION OF COMPLAINT TO ITS ORIGINAL FILE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE VIDE ANNEXURE A.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:9771 WP No. 4391 of 2025

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

The private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was registered on 22.10.2020 by the trial Court. On 11.01.2021, the petitioner-complaint's advocate was present and requested the Court to issue summons to the accused by hand/RPAD. On 20.03.2021, the complainant's advocate requested the Court to issue summons to the fresh address of the accused. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the matter was adjourned multiple times from 10.05.2021 onwards. On 11.05.2022, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, and notices were issued to both the complainant and accused. Thereafter, the complainant did not take steps for issuing notice to the accused. As a result, on 22.03.2024, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution, since neither the complainant was present nor was he represented by his counsel.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Although sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to take out steps for issuing notice to the accused, the complainant states that due to a communication gap, he could not instruct his counsel to take steps. If the complaint is not restored, the complainant will lose his valuable right to recover the money under the subject cheque, which would be unjust. Restoring the complaint will not cause any prejudice to the accused. On the

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:9771 WP No. 4391 of 2025

¶22

contrary, failing to restore the complaint would result in a monetary loss to the complainant if he were to succeed in the case.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

¶25

ii. The impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.13741/2020 is hereby set aside and the complaint is restored to its file.

¶26

iii. It is needless to states that in the event the complainant fails to take steps from the next date of hearing, the trial Court to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶27

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶28

TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT: BHK

Mr Kavil K N v. Mr Sunil Kumar K R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Kavil K N v. Mr Sunil Kumar K R

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

Keshav Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Champaka Vs Mrs. Prabhamani.K. S

Sri Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Madhu @ Madhava Vs State by H.A.L. Police

Sri Jamburaj L Vs Smt N Renuka

Vijitha B Vs State by