M/S.Laxven Chits Pvtr Ltd vs K.B.Vedamurthy S/O K.B. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 108 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100096/2020 (A)

BETWEEN

M/S.LAXVEN CHITS PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS BUSINESS PLACE AT
K.L.S. COMPLEX, HOSPET,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
K. GOPALA KRISHNA
SON OF LATE K. LAXMAN SHETTY
AGED:66 YEARS,
R/O.HOSPET OF BALLARI DISTRICT.
                                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADV.)

AND

K.B.VEDAMURTHY S/O K.B. VASULINGAPPA
M/S SHIVANI ASOCIATES,
NEAR SHADI MAHAL,
ARAVIND NAGAR, HOSPET-583201.
                                         ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI DAYANAND BANDI, ADVOCATE)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF THE
CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
07.08.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOSAPETE    IN  C.C.NO.1458/2013    FOR    THE  OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I.ACT AND
                              2




CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE COMPLAINT BY ORDERING FOR
ITS REGISTRATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed the subject appeal seeking to

set aside the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the

Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete in Criminal Case

No.1458/2013 and has sought a consequential direction to

restore the complaint before the competent Court.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint as

borne out from the pleadings are as follows :

The appellant registers a Private Complaint under

Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the

proceedings were continued from time to time.

3. On 07.08.2015 owing to the absence of the

appellant-complainant, the proceedings were terminated by

the competent Court. Against the said order of termination,

a Criminal Revision Petition was filed before the Sessions

Court, which was allowed by the order dated 24.08.2016.

Against the said order, the respondent-accused had

preferred the Criminal Petition No.100177/2017, which

came to be disposed off by the order of this Court dated

27.01.2020 quashing the said order of the Sessions Court

and reserving liberty to the complainant to take such steps

as available in law on the ground of want of maintainability

of the revision petition filed before the Sessions Court.

Pursuant to the said liberty granted by this Court in the

aforesaid criminal petition, the present appeal is filed by

the appellant.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant was present

at all times and the only date on which he was absent is on

07.08.2015, on which date the Court terminated the

proceedings instituted by complainant.

5. In the light of the order of termination of the

proceedings, the accused is acquitted in the said case

without there being any determination on the merit of the

matter by the criminal Court. Therefore the impugned

order requires appropriate interference.

6. For the aforesaid reason the following :

ORDER

i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 07.08.2015 stands

quashed.

iii. Private Complaint No.37/2013 in Criminal

Case No.1458/2013 stands restored.

iv. The criminal Court is directed to conclude the

proceedings in Criminal Case No.1458/2013

on its merit.

v. Since the proceedings are of the year-2013,

the competent Court shall endeavour to

conclude the proceedings within an outer limit

of nine months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this Judgment.

vi. It is needless to observe that the parties to lis

shall co-operate for conclusion of the

proceedings.

SD JUDGE CKK