Karnataka High Court
Smt. Aruna Rao vs M/S Namma Wellness on 5 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44871
CRL.A No. 1495 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1495 OF 2023 (A)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ARUNA RAO,
W/O. NAVEEN S.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
FLAT NO.204, 2ND FLOOR,
MARS MOUNT APARTMENT,
NEAR TATA PROMONT,
HOSAKEREHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 085.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHA RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. MEENAKSHI K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA 1. M/S NAMMA WELLNESS
PARVEEN NO.68/128, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN,
Location: HIGH REDDY LAYOUT, NEXT TO PRAMOD LAYOUT,
COURT OF PANTARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 039.
KARNATAKA REP. BY, ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS
2. SRI.SANJEEVAKUMAR R.S.,
S/O HULIRAJA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
NAMMA WELLNESS,
NO.68/128, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN,
REDDY LAYOUT, NEXT TO PRAMOD LAYOUT,
PANTARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 039.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44871
CRL.A No. 1495 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. SMT. SAHANA K.,
W/O SANJEEV KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.G024, MARS MOUNT APARTMENT,
SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, HOSAKEREHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(4) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2023, IN C.C. No.
16633/2022 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL.C.M.M BENGALURU BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 passed by the 16 th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, dated 27.02.2023.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that:
The appellant/complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The case was registered in PCR No.4767/2022. Thereafter, cognizance was taken. Then case was registered in -3- NC: 2025:KHC:44871 CRL.A No. 1495 of 2023 HC-KAR C.C.No.16633/2022 and summons was issued to the accused by speed post and also through jurisdictional police. On 08.08.2022, the complainant was present.
Accused was absent. Hence, Court has passed an order for re-issue of summons to the accused and case was posted on 14.10.2022. That on 14.10.2022, the Presiding Officer was on leave and case was posted to 16.12.2022. That on 16.12.2022 complainant absent, no representation for both sides. Again Court has passed an order to reissue summons to accused and case was posted to 27.02.2023.
That on 27.02.2023, the Court has passed the following order.
"Counsel absent.
Complainant absent.
Accused absent.
No representation for both sides. Hence, kept by
-Sd- 27/2/23 Again case is called out at 3.00 PM. Complainant and accused absent. No representation for both side.
-Sd- 27/2/23 Again case called out, at 5.45 P.M. Complainant called out, absent, no representation for complainant. Perused the records. There are more than 6 dates of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44871 CRL.A No. 1495 of 2023 HC-KAR hearing running around for more than one year for steps and also for service of summons and execution of NBW and to furnish the process fee. But the complainant inspite of sufficient opportunity were given, the complainant continuously remained absent and failed to take steps. Insptie of order, process also not paid continuously for several dates for hearing. No doubt it is true that the case should not be dismissed either for default or for non- prosecution. But on the other hand, the case has to be decided on merits and the real controversy between the parties has to be adjudicated finally and effectively. But in this case, the complainant continuously remained absent. This shows that, the complainant is not interested in prosecuting this case. The proceedings of this nature is summary in nature as per Section 143 of N.I. Act, which is required to be concluded in respect of trial within six months from the date of filing the complaint. But, complainant continuously remained absent. Hence, this Court has no option but to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution Hence, complaint is dismissed for non- prosecution".
3. A perusal of this order sheet it is crystal clear that the complainant has furnished the process fee to issue summons to accused. Court has also issued the summons and same was not executed. After passing the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44871 CRL.A No. 1495 of 2023 HC-KAR order for re-issue of summons to the accused, it is the duty of the Court to see that whether the summons is served or not. Without passing any order on issuance of summons, the Court has dismissed the complaint for default and non-prosecution, which is not sustainable under law.
4. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The order passed by the 16th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.16633/2022 dated 27.02.2023 is set aside.
The C.C.No.16633/2022 shall be restored.
The complainant/appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court without seeking any further notice on 03.12.2025.
The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:44871 CRL.A No. 1495 of 2023 HC-KAR Registry is directed to send the copy of this order along with Trial Court Records to the Trial Court for taking necessary action.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33