Karnataka High Court
Veerbhadrayya N.Buyya vs Ambadas on 7 January, 2022
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200055/2020
BETWEEN:
Veerbhadrayya N.Buyya S/o Nagappa Buyya
Aged about 67 years, Occ : Retried CEO of
Gandhi Gunj Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Bidar, R/o Bidar - 585 401.
... Appellant
(By Sri Ravi B.Patil, Advocate)
AND:
Ambadas S/o Dharmanna,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ : Revenue Inspector,
R/o H.No.17-5-234/1,
Behind Old Church,
Mailoor, Bidar - 558 401.
... Respondent
(By Sri Shivaputra S.Udbalkar and
Sri Preetam Deulgaonkar, Advocates)
This Criminal appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of
Cr.P.C praying to set aside the impugned order dated
07.11.2019 as at Annexure-C passed in C.C.No.634/2015
2
arising out of P.C.No.191/2014 passed by the Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC-II at Bidar, and consequentially to
restore the matter to its original file by providing an
opportunity to the appellant to proceed with the matter.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The present appeal is filed against the order
passed on 07.11.2019 in C.C.No.634/2015 whereby the
complaint filed by the appellant came to be dismissed for
non-prosecution.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
A private compliant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C
came to be filed by the appellant against the respondent
herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act. After completing the formalities
summons came to be issued against the respondent herein
However, notice to the respondent was not served before
the learned trial Magistrate. Accordingly, coercive steps
were also taken. The warrant issued was also not
executed. In the meantime the learned Presiding Officer of
the court below was under training and in-charge of the
court was seized of the matter. The learned Presiding
Officer resumed to the duty on 25.07.2019. Subsequent
thereto, the learned Magistrate taking note of the fact that
the complainant remained absent and effective steps have
not been taken to serve the respondent, by order dated
07.11.2019 the complaint came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution.
4. Sri Ravi B.Patil learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the complainant was all along tried
his level best to serve respondent by taking appropriate
steps and in the meantime since the learned Trial Judge in
the trial Court was on training, there was
miscommunication between the appellant which resulted in
order of dismissal of the complaint and complainant is
ready to take appropriate steps and proceed with the
matter.
5. Before this Court the respondent is served and
represented by a learned counsel Sri Preetam and
Shivaputra.
6. Since the respondent is now served before this
appeal, directing the parties to appear before the learned
trial Magistrate and proceed with the case in accordance
with law would meet the ends of justice. However, since
the case came to be dismissed for non prosecution the
appeal needs to be allowed by ordering cost of `1,000/-
payable by the appellant to the respondent. Accordingly,
following :
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Order dated 07.11.2019 passed in C.C.No.634/2015
is hereby set-aside on payment of cost of `1,000/- by
complainant to accused and parties are directed to be
present before the trial Court positively on 28.01.2022 and
proceed with the case in accordance with law.
It is made clear that payment of cost is condition
precedent for continuation of the case before the trial
Court.
Further, it is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sn
