Karnataka High Court
Raitar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane ... vs Parashuram Avvanna Mane on 16 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3746
CRL.A No. 100247 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100247 OF 2021 (A-)
BETWEEN:
RAITAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT,
RANNANAGAR, TIMMAPUR, TQ. MUDHOL,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT,
REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KALLAPPA S/O NAGAPPA OBANNAGOL,
AGE.46 YEARS, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
R/O RANNANAGAR, TIMMAPUR,
TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
PARASHURAM AVVANNA MANE
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HARVESTING
CONTRACTOR, R/O BEERANAL,
ANNAPURNA TQ. RAIBHAG, DIST. BELGAUM-591317.
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL
Date: 2024.02.20
10:48:58 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR
NON PROSECUTION DATED 24.02.2020 IN C.C. NO.1406/2009 ON
THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL, REGISTERED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AND RESTORE THE COMPLAINT
ON ITS FILE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3746
CRL.A No. 100247 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal
Procedure Code (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') is filed by the
complainant challenging the order dated 24.02.2020
passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Mudhol, in C.C.No.1406/2009, dismissing the complaint
for non-prosecution.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent who is served in the matter has
remained unrepresented before this Court.
4. Appellant herein had filed a private complaint
before the trial Court under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. with
a prayer to convict the respondent herein for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act.'). The trial
Court after taking cognizance of the alleged offence had
issued summons to the respondent. Since the
respondent/accused had refused to receive the summons,
non-bailable warrant was issued to respondent by the trial
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3746
Court. On the ground that the complainant had not taken
steps for executing the non-bailable warrant issued
against the respondent/accused, the trial Court has
dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution on
24.02.2020. Being aggrieved by the said order,
complainant is before this Court.
5. Perusal of the order sheet would go to show
that the respondent/accused had refused to receive the
summons that was issued to him by the trial Court in
C.C.No.1406/2009, it is under these circumstances, non-
bailable warrant was issued to respondent/accused by the
trial Court. Order sheet of the trial Court would go to show
that in spite of the complainant taking steps for executing
the non-bailable warrant issued to respondent/accused by
the trial Court, the non-bailable warrant issued by the
Court had returned unserved. However, the said non-
bailable warrant issued by the trial Court never stood
cancelled. In my considered view having regard to Section
70 of the Cr.P.C without canceling the non-bailable
warrant, the trial Court ought not have dismissed the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3746
complaint for non-prosecution. If opportunity is not
granted to the appellant/complainant to prosecute his
complaint on merits, he is likely to be put into irreparable
loss and hardship.
6. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the trial Court
in C.C.No.1406/2009 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly,
the following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed.
b) Order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Court of
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, in
C.C.No.1406/2009, is set aside and complaint is
restored to file.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AC
CT:GSM.
