[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shashi @ Shashikumar vs Sri.Ravi on 12 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:52983
CRL.RP No. 280 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 280 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHASHI @ SHASHIKUMAR,
S/O LATE NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
SANYASIHALLI VILLAGE,
BELUR TLAUK - 573 115,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
(ADDRESS AS PER ANNEXURE - B)
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI MARUTI KANNAYYA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NAIK VENKATRAMAN NAGAPPA, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
SRI RAVI,
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
BEHIDN MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BELUR TALUK - 573 115,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
Digitally signed (ADDRESS AS PER ANNEXURE - B)
by ANUSHA V ...RESPONDENT
Location: High
[BY SRI HARISH KUMAR M C., ADVOCATE (PH)]
Court of
Karnataka THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S
438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
8.11.2024, PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, HASSAN, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.30/2024, ARISING OUT
OF C.C.NO.26/2022 THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY
THE PETITIONER, FOR NON PROSECUTION, FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT. AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:52983
CRL.RP No. 280 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 08.11.2024 passed by II
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.no.30/2024
dismissing appeal for non-prosecution arising out of judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2024 passed
by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Belur, Hassan, in
C.C.no.26/2022, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Maruti Kannayya Naik, learned counsel
appearing for Sri Naik Venkatraman Nagappa, counsel for
petitioner (accused) submitted that present revision is arising
out of proceedings initiated by respondent (complainant) in a
private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging
that accused was acquainted with complainant and on
20.01.2021, accused had borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- for his
household expenses etc., and on same day, issued cheque
bearing no.941492 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Belur Branch,
requesting same to be presented after due date. But, when
cheque was presented on 29.09.2021, it returned dishonored
with endorsement 'funds insufficient' and "difference in drawers
signature" on 08.10.2021 and thereafter, accused failed to
repay amount within time even after demand notice dated
NC: 2025:KHC:52983
HC-KAR
23.10.2021 got issued by complainant was served, thereby
committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short).
3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought
trial. Thereafter, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and
got marked Exhibits C1 to C5. On appraisal of incriminating
material, accused denied same and his statement under
Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded.
4. Relying upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kabira v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1981 (Supp)
SCC 76 and Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam reported in
(2011) 4 SCC 729, learned counsel submitted, impugned
order would be unsustainable without following procedure for
appointment of amicus curiae and seeks for allowing revision
petition.
5. On other hand, learned counsel for respondent
(complainant) opposed revision by submitting that appeal was
dismissed for non-compliance of conditional interim order
granted and also on account of consistent absence of petitioner
after providing opportunity. Therefore, there was no bonafide in
NC: 2025:KHC:52983
HC-KAR
revision. It was further submitted without any fault,
respondent-complainant would suffer delay in adjudication of
his claim.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order
passed as well as decision relied upon.
7. Indeed, ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in decisions relied upon would indicate non-confirmation by
appellate Court while dismissing appeal for non-prosecution.
However, it is also seen that said order was passed after
granting several opportunities to appellant to turn up and
submit his arguments. Same has delayed adjudication of
complainant's claim. Under above circumstances, it is found fit
to set-aside order and remit matter back to appellate Court for
adjudication on merits by compensating complainant with some
costs and since both parties are represented, by fixing specific
date for appearance and to conclude arguments.
8. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed. Impugned
order dated 08.11.2024 is set aside. Crl.A.no.30/2024 is
restored to file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan.
NC: 2025:KHC:52983
HC-KAR
Appellate Court to proceed with matter from same stage
at which appeal prior to impugned order i.e.,08.11.2024.
Appellate Court shall hear arguments on both sides and
pass judgment on merits in accordance with law. While doing
so, it would be justified in fixing timeline for conclusion of
arguments on both sides.
Parties are directed to appear before appellate Court on
21.01.2026.
For inconvenience caused to respondent (complainant),
petitioner (accused) shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to respondent
on or before 21.01.2026.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
