Karnataka High Court
M Janardhana vs Shobha S on 6 March, 2024
-1-
CRL.A No. 1075 of 2022
NC: 2024:KHC:9284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1075 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
M JANARDHANA
S/O MALLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT THALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 062
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHOBHA S
W/O NAGAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT ANJANAPURA VILLAGE
AND POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 062
by REKHA R ...RESPONDENT
Location: High (BY SRI. SANTOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN
C.C.NO.7014/2018 DATED 02.12.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED OF THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I.ACT;
b) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.A No. 1075 of 2022
NC: 2024:KHC:9284
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 in the
month of October 2016, accused approached the
complainant for hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground
that there is shortage of funds to purchase a site and she
would repay the same within one year. Accordingly,
complainant extended the hand loan in a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/-. After completion of one year, when
complainant approached the accused with a request for
repayment, she issued a cheque dated 30.11.2017.
However, when presented for realization, it was
dishonoured for want sufficient funds. After issuing legal
NC: 2024:KHC:9284
notice and on failure of accused to pay the amount due,
complaint is filed. Though complainant has examined
himself as PW-1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 4 to prove his
case, only on the ground that he has failed to cross-
examine the accused who is examined as DW-1, the trial
Court has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the
accused and hence the appeal.
4. After due service of notice, respondent/accused
has appeared.
5. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for complainant submitted that since the trial
Court has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that
her evidence is not contraverted by the complainant, by
cross-examining her, it is necessary to remand the case to
enable the complainant to cross-examine the accused and
thereafter to decide the matter.
6. Heard arguments and perused the record.
7. Thus, it is the definite case of the complainant
that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and issued
NC: 2024:KHC:9284
the cheque towards repayment of the same which came to
be dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. At the
trial the accused has taken up a defence that she has
issued the subject cheque as a security for chit business
and it is misused by the complainant. However, the
complainant has failed to cross-examine accused and while
dismissing the complaint the trial Court has specifically
made an observation that it is also a ground for acquitting
the accused. In the above facts and circumstances, it has
become necessary to remand the case to enable the
complainant to cross-examine the accused. No prejudice
would be caused to the accused. However, for having
caused inconvenience to the accused to engage the
services of counsel, it is necessary to impose some cost,
which is quantified at Rs.5,000/- and accordingly, the
following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed, subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-
to the accused before the trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:9284
(ii) The impugned order dated 02.12.2021 passed
in C.C.No.7014/2018 on the file of II Addl.Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru is set aside.
(ii) The complainant/appellant and
respondent/accused are directed to appear
before the trial Court on 21.03.2024 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
