Shri Maheshwar S/O Veerasangayya ... vs Shri Chidanand Durdundayya Hiremath
2025 Latest Caselaw 2067 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shri Maheshwar S/O Veerasangayya ... vs Shri Chidanand Durdundayya Hiremath on 8 January, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                              -1-
                                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:243
                                                                     CRL.A No. 100593 of 2023




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                            DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                           BEFORE
                                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100593 OF 2023 (A)
                                 BETWEEN:
                                 SHRI. MAHESHWAR
                                 S/O VEERASANGAYYA HIREMATH
                                 AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                                 R/O.KALA MARUTI GALLI,
                                 TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
                                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                                 (BY SRI. JAGDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                                 AND:

                                 1.   SHRI CHIDANAND DURDUNDAYYA HIREMATH,
                                      AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                                      R/O. RANGAPUR,
                                      TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI-590001

                                 2.   SHRI SHIVAPRAKASH VEERABHADRAYYA HIREMATH
                                      AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                                      R/O. C/O. RENUKA MOTORS,
                                      B.K. COLLEGE ROAD, CHIKKODI,
           Digitally signed by
           MOHANKUMAR B               DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
           SHELAR
           Location: HIGH
MOHANKUMAR COURT OF
B SHELAR   KARNATAKA             3.   SHRI DURDUNDESHWAR CHANDRASHEKHAR,
           DHARWAD
           BENCH                      AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
           Date: 2025.01.10
           12:40:17 +0530             R/O. C/O. RENUKA MOTORS,
                                      B.K. COLLEGE ROAD,
                                      CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
                                                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                                 (BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE)

                                      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (4) OF CR.P.C.,
                                 SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
                                 DATED 21.11.2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
                                 CHIKKODI, IN P.C. NO.139/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE 406, 416, 417
                                 AND    418     OF     IPC    WITH    RESPECT    TO     THE
                                 APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT.
                                   -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:243
                                         CRL.A No. 100593 of 2023




    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant filed a private complaint against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 406, 416, 417, and 418 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance, issued summons, and the accused entered their appearance. The appellant submitted an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief/sworn statement but failed to subject himself to further examination. Consequently, the Trial Court treated the evidence of the complainant as 'nil' and dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution as the complainant/appellant remained absent.

2. Appellant's Contentions.

3. The appellant contends that his absence was due to bona fide reasons, including ill health and age-related issues, and not due to willful negligence. He seeks that the order of the Trial Court be set aside and the complaint restored to its original file.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused argued that the appellant, despite being granted sufficient opportunities, failed to adduce evidence. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.

5. The appellant has stated that his absence before the Trial Court was not intentional but arose from genuine and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:243

unavoidable circumstances such as ill health and age-related problems. He further contended that if the complaint is not restored, he would suffer grave injustice, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/accused if the complaint is restored.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both parties.

7. Considering the submissions and the circumstances explained by the appellant, it appears that his absence was due to bona fide reasons. Denying the appellant an opportunity to pursue his complaint would result in injustice, while restoring the complaint would not prejudice the respondents/accused. Therefore, the impugned order of the Trial Court dismissing the complaint is liable to be set aside, and the complaint restored to its file. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.

ii) The order dated 21.11.2017 passed in P.C. No.139/2014 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkodi, dismissing the complaint is hereby set aside. Consequently, the private complaint is restored to its file.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:243

iii) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 03.02.2025 without awaiting any further notice from the Trial Court.

iv) In the event the appellant fails to proceed with the matter by adducing evidence, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

KMS