Karnataka High Court
M/S Sree Gokulam Chits vs N Jayalakshmi on 20 January, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2072
CRL.A No. 2011 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2011 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
M/S SREE GOKULAM CHITS
& FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD.,
CORPORATE OFFICE AT No. 66,
ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKAM
CHENNAI - 600 024
AND BRANCH OFFICE AT No. 240
SAMPIGE ROAD, 16TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003.
REPRESENTED BY SRI NAVEEN KUMAR.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
(BY SRI K R KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
N JAYALAKSHMI
W/O VENKATESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O # 45 /A, 4TH MAIN
HEALTH LAYOUT
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 091.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI DHARMAPAL,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF Cr.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2018
PASSED BY THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2072
CRL.A No. 2011 of 2018
XXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.No.16468/2016 FOR
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant praying
to set aside the order dated 14.09.2018 passed in C.C. No.
16468/2016 by the XXIV ASCJ and XXII ACMM, Bengaluru
and for restoration of C.C. No. 16468/2016 to its original
number.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with
the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, it is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The appellant - complainant initiated
proceedings against the respondent - accused for offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
(hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the `N.I.
Act') and it was pending in C.C. No. 16468/2016 on the
NC: 2025:KHC:2072
file of XXIV ASCJ and XXII ACMM, Bengaluru. Said case
came to be listed for leading evidence on complainant's
side on 14.09.2018 and on that day, noting the absence of
complainant, learned Magistrate has dismissed the
complaint for default. Said order has been challenged by
the complainant in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for appellant would contend
that the appellant is a Private Limited Company and as
there was change in the representative of the appellant -
complainant, the Company's counsel filed an application
on 29.08.2018 for substituting the representative of the
appellant - complainant and it came to be allowed by
order dated 04.09.2018. Thereafter, the case came to be
listed for evidence on 10.09.2018 and the matter came to
be adjourned to 14.09.2018. He submits that on
14.09.2018, as complainant's representative appeared in
another case, i.e., in C.C. No. 50405/2015 on the file of
XIV ACMM, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru, he could not appear
in C.C. No. 16468/2016 and noting his absence, the
complaint came to be dismissed for default. Absence of
NC: 2025:KHC:2072
the complainant's representative on 14.09.2018 is not
malafide, but it is bonafide. With this he prayed for
allowing the appeal and restoring the case.
6. Learned counsel for respondent - accused would
contend that the complainant's representative was absent
on 04.09.2018 and on 10.09.2018 and noting the absence
of representative of appellant - company, learned
Magistrate has dismissed the complaint for default on
14.09.2018. If the complainant's representative was
required to appear in another case, his counsel ought to
have made representation in the matter. There is gross
negligence on the part of appellant - complainant. With
this he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
this Court has perused the impugned order and other
material placed on record.
8. Proceedings initiated by the appellant -
complainant against the respondent - accused for offence
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in C.C. No. 16468/2016
was listed for evidence on 10.09.2018 and on that day,
NC: 2025:KHC:2072
the matter was ordered to be listed on 14.09.2018. Noting
the absence of complainant, learned Magistrate on
14.09.2018 has passed the impugned order dismissing the
complaint for default. The documents produced indicate
that the complainant's representative appeared in another
matter in C.C. No. 50405/2015 on the file of XIV ACMM,
Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru. Therefore, absence of
complainant's representative on 14.09.2018 in C.C. No.
16468/2016 is bonafide and not malafide. Therefore, the
impugned order dismissing the complaint for default
requires to be set aside.
9. In the result, the following;
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 14.09.2018 passed in
C.C. No. 16468/2016 by the XXIV ASCJ and XXII
ACMM, Bengaluru is set aside.
iii. Criminal case in C.C. No. 16468/2016 is restored.
NC: 2025:KHC:2072
iv. The appellant and respondent are directed to appear
before the XXIV ASCJ and XXII ACMM, Bengaluru
on 18.02.2024 without awaiting for Court notice.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
