Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddalingayya R Hiremath vs Sri Shanmugam S on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47255
CRL.A No. 146 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SIDDALINGAYYA R HIREMATH
S/O RUDRAIAH HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO. 529, VINAYAKA HOSPITAL
4TH CROSS, WEAVERS COLONY
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 083.
Digitally signed
by ...APPELLANT
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA M, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka AND:
1. SRI SHANMUGAM S
S/O SURESAM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.277, PONNASWAMY BUILDING
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47255
CRL.A No. 146 of 2025
HC-KAR
LAKSHMISAGAR ROAD,
2ND CROSS, K.T.LAYOUT,
OPP. BALAJI PROVISION STORE,
HALECHANDAPURA POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN: 560 081.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANOJ S N, ADVOCATE) (ABSENT)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY XXII ACMM AT BENGALURU
IN CC.NO.26541/2018 DATED 26.07.2022 AND RESTORE THE
CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEED AGAINST THE ACCUSED.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47255
CRL.A No. 146 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred the appeal against the
impugned order passed by the XXII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 26.07.2022 in
C.C No.26541/2018.
2. The complainant/appellant filed a complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 138 of N.I Act. After
taking cognizance, case was registered in C.C
No.26541/2018. The accused appeared before the Court
and substance of plea was recorded. The complainant has
adduced his evidence as P.W.1. Thereafter, he remained
absent. Hence, on 26.07.2022, the trial Court has passed
the impugned order, which reads as under:
"Case called out. Accused present.
Complainant absent.
No representation.
Counsel for complainant also absent.
"Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities the
complainant is not present before the court for
cross Examination. There is no reason for the
complainant to show that why he is absent
before the court. It shows that he is not
interested to proceed with the complaint.
NC: 2025:KHC:47255
HC-KAR
According to Section 256 of Cr.P.C., if the
summons has been issued on complaint, and
on the day appointed for the appearance of the
accused, or any day subsequent thereto to
which the hearing may be adjourned, the
complainant does not appear, the Magistrate
shall acquit the accused, unless for the reasons
he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of
the case to some another day provided that
where the complainant is represented by a
pleader or by officer conducting the
prosecution or where the Magistrate is of
opinion that the personal attendance of the
complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate
may dispense with his attendance and proceed
with the case.
In the case on hand, the accused is regularly
present before the Court and the complainant
is absent before the Court and the presence of
the complainant is very much necessary for the
purpose of Cross Examination but he is not
present before the court. I do not find any
reason to adjourn the case to some other day.
Hence, in view of section 256 of Cr.P.C., I
hereby pass the following.
NC: 2025:KHC:47255
HC-KAR
ORDER
The accused is hereby acquitted for the
offence punishable U/s 138 of NI Act.
The bail bond of the accused is hereby
stands cancelled."
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that complainant is running Hospital by name Vinayaka
Hospital. During Covid-19, the patients are admitted in
the hospital. In severe condition of Covid-19, he cannot
leave the hospital. The non-appearance of the
complainant was bonafide and not an intentional one. On
all these grounds, he sought for allowing this appeal.
4. I have examined the entire order sheet. Though, the
complainant has taken sufficient time, he has not
appeared for cross-examination. However, in the interest
of justice, it is just and proper to provide one more
opportunity to the complainant to adduce his evidence.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:47255
HC-KAR
ii) The impugned order passed by the XXII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated
26.07.2022 in C.C No.26541/2018, is set aside.
iii) The C.C No.26541/2018 on the file of the XXII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
shall be restored.
iv) Both parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court on 10.12.2025.
v) The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case
in accordance with law.
vi) The Registry is directed to send the copy of this
order to the trial Court to proceed with the case in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
UN
