Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivappa B Managuli vs Smt Kalavathi C M on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44809
CRL.A No. 1258 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2024 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVAPPA B MANAGULI
S/O. BASAPPA MANAGULI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.116, TANYA'S COTTAGE,
3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, S.P.NAIDU
LAYOUT, VIJINAPUR, RAMAMURTHY
NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 016
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI. KARTHIK REDDY .C., FOR
by NANDINI B
G SRI. VINAY SWAMY .C., ADVOCATES)
Location: high
court of AND:
karnataka
SMT. KALAVATHI C.M.
PROPRIETRIX CANARA LINES
W/O. CHANDRA SHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT: NO.30. VST LAYOUT
NEAR MTB SCHOOL LAKSHMI
SAGAR LAYOUT, MAHADEVPURA
BANGALORE - 560 048
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SD - UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2024 PASSED V ASCJ AND XXV
A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.52846/2019.
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44809
CRL.A No. 1258 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
The respondent remained absent inspite of service of
notice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant - the
complainant in C.C.No.52846/2019, on the file of the learned
58th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
3. The certified copy of the order sheet discloses that
the complaint was presented on 23.03.2019, on the same day
the cognizance was taken. Inspite of service of notice, the
accused remained absent before the Trial Court. NBW was
issued on 12.11.2019. However, his presence could not be
secured inspite of issuance of NBWs repeatedly. In the mean
time the case was advanced on 08.07.2022 and the accused
appeared before the Court represented by her advocate. The
NBW got recalled. She was ordered to be released on bail. It is
pertinent to note that thereafter, the accused never appeared
before the Trial Court inspite of issuance of NBWs repeatedly.
On 20.04.2024, the complainant was absent and the complaint
came to be dismissed for default i.e., for non prosecution.
NC: 2024:KHC:44809
4. On going through the order sheet, it is clear that
the accused inspite of service of notice had not chosen to
appear before the Court, initially for few years. After issuance
of NBW repeatedly, the accused appeared before the Trial Court
represented by her advocate and got released herself on bail,
subject to conditions. Inspite of that, she never appeared
before the Court in compliance of the conditions imposed while
enlarging her on bail. Again NBW came to be issued and re-
issued, but the same were not executed.
5. It is pertinent to note that the respondent is served
with summons issued by this Court in the address mentioned in
the cause title. Under such circumstances, the report of the
police, that the respondent is not residing in the given address
cannot be accepted. The ground urged by the appellant for not
being present before the Court on the date when the case came
to be dismissed is reasonable and the same is accepted. Hence,
I am of the opinion that the impugned order dismissing the
criminal case is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:44809
(ii) Impugned order dated 20.04.2024 passed by the
learned V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, Bangalore is hereby
set aside.
(iii) C.C.No.52846/2019 is restored on the file.
(iv) The appellant and the respondent shall appear
before the Trial Court on 21.11.2024, without waiting for
summons by the Trial Court.
If the respondent remains absent, the Trial Court is
directed to secure his presence and to dispose of the matter
expeditiously in accordance with law.
Office is directed to communicate this order to Trial Court
for information and needful action.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
