Karnataka High Court
Ravi @ Ravindra vs Siddaram on 13 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1020
CRL.A No. 200014 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200014 OF 2024
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
RAVI @ RAVINDRA S/O BASAVARAJ,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PROP. SAI PRASANNA ARTS
AND PAINTING CONTRACT WORK,
R/O. DEVI NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANTOSH PATIL,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SIDDARAM S/O VEERSHETTY PULARE,
Digitally signed by AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH PROP. SRI SAI CLOTH STORE
Location: HIGH NEAR NAGARESHWAR SCHOOL, NEHRU GUNJ,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KALABURAGI-585104.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAVI B. CHAWAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 378 (4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND
THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT. 7.6.2022 IN CC NO.
4943/2017 PASSED BY TRIAL COURT I.E. III ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI AND RESTORE THE CASE TO
ITS ORIGINAL STAGE IN CC NO. 4943/2017 DISMISSED FOR
NON-PROSECUTION VIDE ORDER DATED 07.06.2022.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1020
CRL.A No. 200014 of 2024
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
This appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., is filed by
the complainant assailing the order dated 07.06.2022 passed
by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaburagi,
dismissing his complaint in C.C.No.4943/2017 on 07.06.2022
for non-prosecution.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant herein had filed private complaint in
P.C.No.500/2017 before the trial Court against the
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act'). In the
said proceedings, learned Magistrate having taken
cognizance of the alleged offence, had issued summons to
the respondent. Since the respondent/accused claimed to be
tried, the matter was posted for recording the complainant's
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1020
evidence. On the ground that, the complainant had not
presented himself for leading evidence, the trial Court
dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution vide order
impugned. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal
is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that,
the appellant has got a good case on merits. He submits
that, though the complainant was diligent in prosecuting his
appeal, since he had some communication gap with his
Advocate, he could not appear before the trial Court
regularly on the dates of hearing and the same had resulted
in dismissing of the complaint for non-prosecution. He
submits that, the complainant is ready and willing to appear
before the trial Court and lead evidence. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
has opposed the prayer made in the appeal. He submits that,
sufficient opportunity has been given to the complainant
before the trial Court which he has not utilized and therefore,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1020
it is not a fit case for interference. Accordingly, he prays to
dismiss the appeal.
6. The trial Court after recording the sworn
statement of the complainant having perused the sworn
statement as well as the documents produced by the
complainant being satisfied that the complainant has made
out a prima-facie case as against the respondent for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act has taken
cognizance of the alleged offence against the respondent and
has thereafter issued summons to the respondent.
Therefore, it is apparent that the trial Court was satisfied
that, the appellant had made out a prima-facie case as
against the respondent for the alleged offence.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant having
reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum,
has submitted that, though the appellant was diligent in
prosecuting his appeal, since he had some communication
gap with his Advocate, he could not appear regularly on the
dates of hearing and due to the same, the complaint came to
be dismissed for non-prosecution. The order-sheet of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1020
trial Court would go to show that, on 21.10.2021, the
complainant and his Advocate had appeared before the trial
Court. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on three dates
and all the three dates Advocate for the complainant was
present and on 25.03.2022 and on 30.04.2022, the matter
was adjourned for the reason that, the Presiding Officer was
on training. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 07.06.2022.
On the said day, the complaint was dismissed for non-
prosecution. Therefore, the order-sheet would go to show
that, immediately prior to the date of dismissal of the
complaint for non-prosecution, on two dates, the matter was
adjourned for the reason that, the Presiding Officer was on
training. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that,
the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the complaint
for non-prosecution and if an opportunity to the
appellant/complainant is given to lead his evidence before
the trial Court, the same would serve the ends of justice and
no irreparable injury or hardship would be caused to the
respondent. Accordingly, the following order:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1020
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed;
(ii) The order impugned dated 07.06.2022
passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC
Court, Kalaburagi, in C.C.No.4943/2017 is set
aside and the complaint is restored to file. The
trial Court is directed to proceed further in the
matter in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SVH
CT:PK
