Karnataka High Court
Sri. S. Sridar vs Sri. Galihanumaiah on 24 February, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
CRL.A.No.1079/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1079/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI.S.SRIDAR
S/O SATHYANARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.632/5
SUVARNA NAGAR
DODDABIDARAKALLU
NEAR BEHIND GANESHA TEMPLE
BANGALORE - 560 073
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI VENUGOPAL G.M.,ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI.GALIHANUMAIAH
S/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT C/O RUDRESH TEACHER
KUVEMPU NAGARA
NEAR KASABA POLICE STATION
DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA H. EDAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
27.12.2017 PASSED BY THE C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.1052/2012.
CRL.A.No.1079/2018
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
I.A.No.1/2022 is not pressed. Therefore, the same is
dismissed as not pressed.
2. Heard.
3. Though the matter was listed for hearing
on interlocutory application, with consent of both
parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his compliant
for non-prosecution, complainant in
C.C.No.1052/2012 on the file of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore has
preferred the above appeal.
5. The appellant filed PCR No.1/2012 against
the respondent seeking his prosecution for the offence
CRL.A.No.1079/2018
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for
short 'N.I. Act').
6. The appellant alleged that the respondent
issued cheque for Rs.1,60,000/- for making
arrangements for funds and the cheque was
dishonoured. He further alleged that despite service
of statutory notice, respondent did not pay the cheque
amount.
7. The trial Court on taking cognizance of the
offence registered the case in C.C.No.1052/2012.
Respondent on service of summons, appeared in the
case. When the matter was pending for cross-
examination of P.W.1/complainant, respondent
absented himself before the trial Court. Therefore,
non-bailable warrants were being issued since
18.08.2014 till 26.08.2017. However, presence of the
respondent could not be secured.
CRL.A.No.1079/2018
8. On 27.11.2017 the appellant failed to
appear before the trial Court. The trial Court by the
impugned order dismissed the complaint for not
paying the process fee. Such dismissal amounts to
acquittal of the respondent. The said order is
challenged in the above case before this Court.
9. In this case though the respondent
appeared through his counsel, in the later stage,
neither respondent nor his counsel appeared before
Court. Therefore, by the order dated 31.01.2022 non-
bailable warrant was issued against the respondent.
I.A.No.2/2022 is filed to recall the said order.
10. Records show that before the trial Court for
about three years appellant had made all efforts to
secure the presence of the respondent. Only on two
hearing dates, the appellant could not appear before
CRL.A.No.1079/2018
the trial Court. Therefore dismissal of complaint has
led to miscarriage of justice.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, non-bailable warrant issued against
the respondent is hereby recalled. I.A.No.2/2022 is
disposed of accordingly with a condition that the
respondent shall appear before the trial Court on the
date fixed by this Court.
12. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order
is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to the trial
Court.
Both parties shall appear before the trial Court
on 24.03.2022 without any further notice. On such
appearance of the parties, the trial Court shall proceed
with the matter and dispose of the same in
accordance with law.
CRL.A.No.1079/2018
If the respondent fails to appear, the trial Court
is at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
pgg
