M/S. Hikal Limited Vs M/S. Raffa Trading Company

M/S. HIKAL LIMITED NO.82/A, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON SRI. P. RADHAKRISHNAN.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SAI KIRAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

M/S. RAFFA TRADING COMPANY PLOT NO.18, DOOR NO.3-95J, ROAD NO.2, NEAR BETHAL CHURCH, SAI NAGAR COLONY, NAGOLE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT - 500 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON SRI. C.H. PRADEP KUMAR.

¶16

SRI. C.H. PRADEEP KUMAR MAJOR IN AGE FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO COMPLAINANT PLOT NO.18, DOOR NO.3-95J, ROAD NO.2, NEAR BETHAL CHURCH SAI NAGAR COLONY, NAGOLE,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:35567 CRL.P No. 1290 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 500 035.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER ATED 28.02.2018 PASSED BY XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.16450/2016 WHICH IS PART OF ANNEXURE-A (ENTIRE ORDER SHEET) AND BE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.16450/2016 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Challenging order dated 31.07.2017 passed by XLII ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.16450/2016 at Annexure-A; order dated 30.12.2017 passed by LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in Crl.R.P.no.843/2017 as well as order dated 28.02.2018 passed by XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and XXII ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.16450/2016 at Annexure-A dismissing proceedings for non-prosecution, this petition is filed.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:35567 CRL.P No. 1290 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Sri R.Sai Kiran, learned counsel for petitioner has filed a Memo stating that prayers no.iii, iv and v in petition are not pressed and only order dated 28.02.2018 dismissing petition for default would be challenged.

¶31

It was submitted that petitioner herein was complainant in P.C.R.no.5253/2016, against respondents for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( NI Act ), later same was registered as C.C.no.16450/2016 on file of XLII ACMM, Bengaluru. It was submitted that respondents - accused were residents of Andhra Pradesh and evading summons, despite issuance of nonbailable warrant. It was submitted that on noticing that accused were operating account in Kotak Mahindra Bank, an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was filed for a direction to Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank Saroornagar Branch, Hyderabad for furnishing their address, phone number and e- mail. But application was rejected. Even Revision against order of rejection was dismissed.

¶32

In meanwhile, proceedings came to be transferred

¶33

to another Court. On account of non-appearance and without

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35567 CRL.P No. 1290 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

providing opportunity, transferee Court dismissed petition for non-prosecution. It was submitted, observation by trial Court that matter was not being pursued by petitioner would be uncharitable as complainant had, in fact, filed Revision Petition against order of rejection of application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and pursuing same. Further, non-appearance on 28.02.2018 was not intentional and therefore, seeks for allowing petition.

¶37

It is seen that at stage of passing of order impugned, summons was not served on respondent - accused and even in these proceedings also petition is not progressing for want of service of summons.

¶38

Learned counsel submits that he would take

¶39

appropriate steps before trial Court and seeks for restoration of proceedings. It is submitted that since respondents - accused were not served before trial Court, notice to them may be dispensed with.

¶40

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned

¶41

order.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35567 CRL.P No. 1290 of 2019

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Considering submission and as accused were not served with summons before trial Court and this Petition is confined to determining validity of order of 28.02.2018 dismissing proceedings for non-prosecution, notice to respondent dispensed with.

¶45

Perusal of order sheet in C.C.no.16450/2016 would indicate that as per Notification no.ADM/1/19/2017, proceedings came to be transferred to XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and XXII ACMM (SCCH-26), Bengaluru. Thereafter same was listed before said Court on 30.01.2018 and ordered to be re-listed on 28.02.2018. On said date, taking note of absence of complainant and counsel and without providing any opportunity, petition is dismissed for nonprosecution by observing that there was no progress and referring to decision in Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and Another reported in AIR 2014 SC 2528, whereunder proceedings were required to be concluded expeditiously.

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35567 CRL.P No. 1290 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Same would not be justified as complainant had, in fact, filed application and was pursuing his remedies before Revisional Court .

¶49

In view of above, dismissal of proceedings for nonprosecution would not be justified. In order to secure ends of justice, order dated 28.02.2018 is set aside in exercise of inherent powers. Petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.no.16450/2016 on file of XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and XXII ACMM, Bengaluru, stand restored. In order to expedite proceedings, petitioner is directed to appear before trial Court without fresh notice on 12.08.2026 . Proceedings shall stand restored to stage it was as on date of impugned order. After providing opportunity to petitioner to take steps, trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶50

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶51

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

M/S. Hikal Limited v. M/S. Raffa Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hikal Limited v. M/S. Raffa Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishnappa B Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kempamma Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraj M.N. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raju N L Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Siddarth Bohara Vs Smt Savitha

Sri. M. Narayana Vs the State of Karnataka