Karnataka High Court
Sri. H. T. Manjunath vs Sri. Vasanthacharya on 5 February, 2024
-1-
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2021
NC: 2024:KHC:4807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.T.MANJUNATH
S/O. LATE THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT HEBBALE VILLAGE,
KUSHALANAGARA HOBLI,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 234.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PANCHAM R D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. VASANTHACHARYA
S/O. CHANNAPPACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
HEAD MASTER, C.P.H. SCHOOL,
HOSURU, BELLANAHALLI POST,
Digitally signed RATHNAPURIMARGA,
by REKHA R
Location: High
HUNSUR TALUK,
Court of MYSORE DISTRICT - 560 040.
Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(SRI. NEERAJAKARANTH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2018
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
KUSHALNAGAR IN C.C.NO.842/2017 AND TO RESTORE THE
SAME TO ITS FILE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.A No. 1193 of 2021
NC: 2024:KHC:4807
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint
filed by him under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the
respondent/accused for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument (for short "N.I.
Act"), appellant who is complainant has filed this appeal
under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the complainant that he and
accused are known to each other for 5-6 years and
because of this acquaintance, accused availed financial
assistance in a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-. However, he failed
to repay the same and on request and demand by the
complainant, issued a cheque dated 14.07.2017. However,
when presented the cheque, it was dishonoured with
endorsement "Funds insufficient". After issuing legal notice
NC: 2024:KHC:4807
and on failure of accused to pay the amount due under
cheque, complaint is filed.
4. The accused appeared before the trial Court
and contested the matter by pleading not guilty.
5. When the case was posted for complainant's
evidence, on 16.08.2018, the trial Court dismissed the
complaint by observing that despite granted sufficient
time, complainant has not led evidence and he is not
interested in prosecuting the case. The non appearance of
appellant and his counsel on 16.08.2018 before the trial
Court is on account of blockage of Koodige Kushalnagara
Road at Koodige Bridge, due to development of cracks in
the bridge. There was no other alternative road to reach
Kushalanagar in time and hence the appeal.
6. After due service of notice respondent/accused
has appeared through counsel.
7. Heard and perused the record.
NC: 2024:KHC:4807
8. Thus, complainant prosecuted the accused on
the allegations that the cheque issued by him towards
repayment of hand loan of Rs.3,60,000/- came to be
dishonoured for funds insufficient and despite due service
of legal notice, accused failed to repay the same.
However, the trial Court dismissed the complaint on
16.08.2018 on the ground that complainant is not
interested in prosecuting the complaint, as he has failed to
lead evidence granting several adjournments. The order
sheet reveal that from 08.03.2018 till 16.08.2018, number
of adjournments were granted to the complainant to lead
evidence. Ultimately, on 16.08.2018, the trial Court
dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. The
complainant has claimed that on 16.08.2018, the Kooige
Kushalanagar Bridge was closed as it has developed cracks
and there was no alternative route to reach the Court in
time. This fact is not disputed by the respondent/accused.
Moreover, having regard to the amount involved and the
allegations made, it is necessary that the case is to be
decided on merit. No prejudice would be caused to the
NC: 2024:KHC:4807
accused as he would get opportunity to resist the case of
the complainant.
9. For this reason, this Court is of the considered
opinion, the matter requires remand to the trial Court for
disposal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity to
both parties and accordingly the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 16.08.2018
passed in C.C.No.842/2017 on the file of
Civil Judge & JMFC., Kushalanagar is set
aside.
(ii) The complainant and respondent/accused
are directed to appear before the trial Court
on 21.02.2024 without waiting for further
notice from the trial Court.
(iii) The trial Court is directed to decide the
case in accordance with law, after providing
reasonable opportunity to both parties.
NC: 2024:KHC:4807
(iv) Of course, if on 21.02.2024,
respondent/accused fails to appear before
the Court, the trial Court is at liberty to
take coercive steps against him for
securing his presence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
