Karnataka High Court
Sri S A Manjunath vs Sri B Shankar on 7 January, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:206
CRL.A No. 1397 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1397 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI S A MANJUNATH
S/O ANNAPPA GANIGA
R/AT # 38, 7TH CROSS
7TH MAIN ROAD
LAKSHMINARAYANA PURAM
BANGALORE - 560 021.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI S JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE)
by HEMAVATHY
GANGABYRAPPA
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SRI B SHANKAR
S/O A BALAYYA ACHARI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT, # P-14, 2ND FLOOR
4TH CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK
NEAR ANGALA PARAMESHWARI
TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 021.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GIRISH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR NON-
PROSECUTION DATED 06.01.2017 PASSED BY XXI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MASGISTRATE,
BANGALORE IN C.C.No.17714/2016 ARISING OUT OF
PCR.No.7447/2016 AND RESTORE THE SAID FILE IN ITS
ORIGINAL NUMBER TO PROCEED THE ABOVE SAID CASE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:206
CRL.A No. 1397 of 2017
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 378 (4) of
Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order of dismissal of
complaint for non prosecution dated 06.01.2017
passed by the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No.17714/2016 and
restore the file in its original number.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent is not
present.
4. The appellant -complainant has initiated
proceedings against the respondent -accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.
Act' for brevity) and case came to be registered
NC: 2025:KHC:206
against the respondent -accused in C.C.
No.17714/2016 and it was pending on the file of the
XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru. The respondent -accused appeared in the
said criminal case and plea came to be recorded on
22.11.2016. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for
recording of evidence of the complainant to
03.12.2016. The complaint came to be dismissed
recording absence of the appellant -complainant on
06.01.2017. The said order of dismissal of the
complaint for non prosecution dated 06.01.2017 has
been challenged in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that on 27.12.2016 when the matter was
fixed for recording evidence of complainant, the
complainant and his counsel were present in the Court
to proceed with the matter and on that day the case
came to be adjourned as the Presiding Officer was on
NC: 2025:KHC:206
leave. He further submits that counsel for the
complainant has taken a wrong date and therefore,
the complainant could not be present on the
adjourned date i.e. 06.01.2017. On the said date the
complaint came to be dismissed for non prosecution.
He further submits that absent of the complainant on
06.01.2017 is for bonafide reason. With this, he prays
to allow the appeal and restore the case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the
appellant, the Court has perused the materials placed
on record.
7. The plea has been recorded on 22.11.2016
and case came to be adjourned for recording of
evidence of complainant to 03.12.2016. On that day,
the complainant was absent and case came to be
adjourned to 14.12.2016. On 14.12.2016, the
accused was absent and complainant was also absent
and case came to be adjourned by imposing cost of
NC: 2025:KHC:206
Rs.200/- to 27.12.2016. On 27.12.2016, the
Presiding Officer was on leave and the case came to
be adjourned to 06.01.2017. On 06.01.2017, the
complainant was absent and noting the same, the
Court dismissed the complaint for non prosecution.
8. The reason put forth by the complainant is
that he has taken a wrong date as 16.01.2017 instead
of 06.01.2017 therefore, he could not be present
before the Court to lead evidence on 06.01.2017. The
appellant -complainant has put forth sufficient reason
for his absence on 06.01.2017.
9. Considering the said aspect, the impugned
order dated 06.01.2017 dismissing the complaint for
non prosecution requires to be set aside and the case
requires to be restored.
10. In the result, the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:206
ii) The impugned order dated 06.01.2017
passed in C.C. No.17714/2016 by the XXI
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru is set aside. The Criminal Case
No.17714/2016 is ordered to be restored to
file.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
