Karnataka High Court
Eureka Forbes Limited vs Reaachout Networks on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
CRL.A No. 1901 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1901 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
EUREKA FORBES LIMITED
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
B1/B2, 701, MARATHON INNOVA,
OFF. GANPATRAO KADAM MARG,
LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013,
MAHARASHTRA.
ALSO HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE AT
NO. 18/2, 2ND FLOOR,
EAST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET,
GANDHI BAZAR, BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004,
KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. RAMESH M.,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N SENIOR ZONAL HEAD, BENGALURU.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
MOBILE: 9900505235
EMAIL: [email protected]
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RANI NALWA, ADV.)
AND:
1. REAACHOUT NETWORKS
NO. 26, 1ST MAIN,
BESIDES INDIAN OIL PETROL BUNK,
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560054,
KARNATAKA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
CRL.A No. 1901 of 2025
HC-KAR
MOBILE: NOT KNOWN,
EMAIL: NOT KNOWN.
2. SRI. SASHIDHAR
S/O.- NOT KNOWN,
AGE.- NOT KNOWN,
NO. 26, 1ST MAIN, BESIDES INDIAN OIL
PETROL BUNK, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE-560054,
KARNATAKA,
MOBILE: NOT KNOWN,
EMAIL: NOT KNOWN.
...RESPONDENTS
(VIDE COURT ORDER DATE:31/10/25,
NOTICE TO R1 & 2 IS DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S
419(4) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
AND JUDGEMENT DT 16.07.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
XXVIII ADDL.CJM IN CC NO.18209/2019 AND RESTORE THE
SAID COMPLAINT AND AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE
APPELLANT TO LEAD EVIDENCE AND/OR BE CROSS EXAMINED
BY THE TRIAL COURT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal
against the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in
CC.No.18209/2019 by the XXVIII Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City (for short 'the trial Court).
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to their rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the
complainant has filed a complaint against the accused for
the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. The case was registered in PCR.No.15226/2017. After
taking cognizance, case was registered in
CC.No.18209/2019. Thereafter summons was issued to
the accused. Same was returned as not claimed.
Thereafter, NBW was issued on 15.06.2023. NBW was
again issued to the accused and case was posted to
21.07.2023. NBW was not executed. Before execution of
NBW, the trial Court has passed an order on 21.10.2023.
Same reads as under:
"Case called out. Accused absent.
Sri. HKKB advocate files vakalath, copy of SAP entry
of the resignation request submitted by the previous
AR of Mr. Nagesh. B.S dated 05.12.2019, copy of
Power of Attorney with Board resolution, affidavit
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
along with application for substitution of complainant
seeking permission of this court to substitute
authorized representative Mr. Vignesh Ravi, in place
of Mr. Nagesh.B.S.
This application is accompanied with the affidavit of
the new Authorized representative of the
complainant company, wherein he has stated that
the complainant is a company duly registered under
the provisions of companies act and a juridical
person prosecuting the accused for the offence u/s
138 of N.I Act before this court through a duly
authorized person.
Further stated that the above said company was
being filed by complainant company through Sri
Nagesh B.S who was authorized to sign, verify and
depose on behalf of complainant company. Further
stated that said Sri Nagesh B.S has been resigned
from the complainant company on 04.12.2019.
Further, Mr. Vignesh Ravi, who is officer (Legal) of
the complainant company is the new authorized
representative of the complainant company duly
authorized by Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2023 to
sign, verify and depose on behalf of the
'plaintiff company'. Further, he is well aware of the
activities and business of the company as well as the
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
facts of the present case. Hence, he prays to allow
the application.
The accused is absent. Hence, objection taken as not
filed.
The learned counsel for the complainant has
submitted that this case is filed by the complainant
against accused for the offence punishable under
section 138 of NI Act. If the application is allowed, no
hardship or loss would be caused to accused, on the
other hand if the application is not allowed, the
complainant would be put to great hardship, agony,
and loss, since the money involved is the public
money. Hence, he prays to allow the application.
Heard and perused.
This is a private complaint filed by the complainant
u/s 200 of Cr.PC against the accused for the offence
punishable under section 138 of NI Act.
This is case in initial stage. Further if application is
allowed, no harm or prejudice would be caused to
the accused. If application is not allowed definitely
the complainant will be put to great hardship and
irreparable loss.
With these reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
ORDER:
Substitution application filed by the counsel for the
complainant is hereby allowed and thereby counsel
for the complainant is permitted to carry out
amendment. For amended complaint.
Call on: 15.11.2023."
4. On 15.11.2023, case was adjourned to file amended
complaint and posted the matter to 19.12.2023. On
19.12.2023, case was adjourned to 24.01.2024. On
24.01.2024, case was adjourned to 14.02.2024. On
06.02.2024, advocate for complainant has filed application
under section 309 of Cr.P.C. On the same date,
complainant has filed amended complaint. Then case was
posted to 14.02.2024 and thereafter, case was posted to
28.03.2024. The case was being adjourned from time-to-
time till 16.07.2025. On that day, the trial Court has
passed the following order:
"Complainant absent. Counsel for complainant
absent. No representation. Already sufficient time
was granted to complainant to adduce evidence.
But till today neither complainant adduced evidence
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
nor appeared before this court. It seems that
complainant is not deligent in prosecuting the case.
Hence complaint of the complainant is hereby
dismissed for non-prosecution."
Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred
the present appeal.
5. On perusal of this order sheet, it is crystal clear that
the accused has not appeared before the trial Court.
However, on 19.06.2025 the trial Court has passed an
order that accused was absent, no EP filed. The order
sheet dated 24.06.2025 reveals that accused was absent.
The order sheets dated 24.06.2025, 01.07.2025 and
05.07.2025 reveal that accused remained absent. Trial
Court has not issued summons to the accused. Summons
is not executed. Before appearance of the accused, trial
Court has blindly posted the case for evidence, without
application of mind. Finally, on 16.07.2025 trial Court has
passed this impugned order. In this regard, this Court has
called for the explanation from the concerned Presiding
Officer. The Learned Magistrate has submitted her written
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
explanation to this Court vide Letter No.28
ACJM/151/2025 dated 11.11.2025 in which it is stated as
under:
"In obedience to your oral order dated: 04.11.2025
on I.A-1/2025 filed in Crl.A.No.1901/2025 the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. I respectfully
submit report as follows:
I have assumed the charge of this court on
02.06.2025. When I was transferred to this court
the total pendency of the this court 6700 cases and
out of the said pendency 3500 cases were
transferred to 53rd ACJM Court by this court. On
verification of the entire order sheet in
CC.No.18209/2019 on the file of 28th ACJM court it
appears that the accused not at all appeared before
this court even after repeated issuance of summons
and NBW. NBW issued against accused returned as
un-executed. When the case was posted for steps on
21.10.2023, the counsel for the complainant filed
amended application for substitution of complaint
and same was allowed and case was posted for
furnishing amended complaint on 15.11.2023.
I submit that, thereafter on 06.02.2024 the counsel
for complainant filed amended complaint and case
was posted for steps on 28.03.2024. On 28.03.2024
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
NBW was issued against accused as per the request
of complainant and posted the matter on
09.05.2024. On 09.05.2024 NBW issued against
accused returned as unexecuted for want of correct
address of accused. Thereafter the case was posted
for steps on 21.06.2024, 26.07.2024, 05.10.2024,
28.11.2024, 16.01.2025, 04.02.2025, 17.03.2025,
05.04.2025. On 05.04.2025 when the case was
posted for taking steps as last chance at that time
Smt.R.N advocate filed Vakalath for complainant
along with application for substitution of
complainant. The same was allowed on the same day
and posted the matter for furnishing amended
complaint on 28.05.2025, 06.06.2025 and
16.06.2025. On those hearing dates neither
complainant nor counsel for complainant appeared
before this court. On 19.06.2025 when the matter
was posted for furnishing amended complaint for last
chance by oversight the case was posted for
complaint evidence instead of taking steps.
I submit that, thereafter the case was posted for
complainant evidence on 16.07.2025 the complaint is
dismissed for non-prosecution. This court has
misleaded by the order dated: 19.06.2025 and
posted the matter for complainant evidence instead
of furnishing of amended complaint and steps. On
24.06.2025 the complainant and counsel for
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
complainant present before this court and prayed
time for complainant evidence. Though the
complainant and counsel for complainant very much
present before this court instead of submitting before
this court that the accused has not yet appeared in
this court they sought time for complainant evidence
and this court has misleaded again by the submission
of the complainant counsel and posted the matter for
complainant evidence. The dismissal of the case for
non-prosecution is not intention one but it was by
misleading by the complainant counsel and order
sheet dated: 19.06.2024.
In future I will be very careful while hearing the
advocates in any matters. My explanation may kindly
be accepted and obliged sir. Sorry for the
inconvenience caused in this regard."
6. After receiving the explanation, this Court has passed
an order that the learned ACJM has not submitted proper
explanation. Same is contrary to the Order dated
16.07.2025. Again explanation was called for submitting
false explanation before this Court. Thereafter, the learned
Presiding Officer has submitted another explanation
stating that by mistake she has passed this impugned
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
order and she has unconditionally tendered her apology
for the error committed.
7. On perusal of the entire order sheet, it is crystal clear
that the Learned Magistrate has not followed the proper
procedure in conducting this case and passed the
impugned order blindly and mechanically, which is not
sustainable under law. The Learned Magistrate shall not
commit such errors or mistakes in future.
8. Subject to the above observation, the explanation
vide Letter No.28 ACJM/156/2025 dated 22.11.2025
submitted by the Learned Magistrate is accepted.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 16.07.2025 passed in
CC.No.18209/2019 by the XXVIII Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City, is set aside.
(iii) The CC.No.18209/2019 shall be restored to file.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48690
HC-KAR
(iv) The complainant is directed to appear before
the trial Court on 10.12.2025 without seeking any further
notice.
(v) The Complainant is directed to take necessary
steps to secure the accused.
(vi) The trial Court shall proceed with the case in
accordance with law.
(vii) Registry is directed to send copy of this order to
the concerned Court, for taking necessary action.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DHA
