Karnataka High Court
J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Co. ... vs Manikantan A M on 5 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44598
CRL.A No. 2014 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2014 OF 2024 (A)
BETWEEN:
J.C. FLOWERS ASSET
RECONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,
(ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS
TRUSTEE OF JCF YES TRUST
2022-23/1)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANEIS ACT, 2013, AND
REGISTERED AS AN ASSET
RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PURSUANT,
TO SECTION 3 OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002,
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT,
12TH FLOOR CROMPTON GREAVES,
HOUSE, DR ANNIE BESANT ROAD,
WORLI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, 400030
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA SIGNATORY, MR MANIMARAN S
PARVEEN ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI S SUSHANT VENKATESH PAI.,ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
MANIKANTAN A M,
AGED MAJOR,
NO. 16, 3RD CROSS, MOTAPPA LAYOUT,
ANANDAPURA VARANASI,
KRISHNARAJAPURAM, NEAR MOTHER,
TERESA SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560036.
ALSO AT:
MANIKANTAN A M,
AGED MAJOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44598
CRL.A No. 2014 of 2024
HC-KAR
KRAYONS INTERIOR SYSTEMS PVT LTD,
NO.43, P M COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR,
CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, ULSOOR,
BANGALORE - 560008.
...RESPONDENT
(VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.11.2025,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378 CR.PC (FILED U/S 419 OF
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT
THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO1) SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.08.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED XIX ADDL. CMM AND ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
CITY CIVI COURT, BENGALURU (SCCH-17) IN
C.C.NO.7261/2021. 2) CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE
C.C.NO.7261/2021 TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XIX ADDL.
CMM AND ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,
BENGALURU (SCCH-17)3) GRANT COSTS OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The appellant who is the complainant has filed
the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The Trial Court
has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence
under Section 138 of NI Act and case came to be
registered in C.C.No.7261/2021. On 19.08.2024, the trial
Court has passed the following order:
NC: 2025:KHC:44598
HC-KAR
"Complainant present.
Learned counsel for the complainant prays time to
take steps. Sufficient time already granted. Inspite of
repeated issuance of NBW, the complainant is not
taking steps to secure the accused. In the last date
of hearing on the request of complainant, it was
ordered to Issue NBW by the hands of complainant
which shall be executed through jurisdictional police.
Even though the NBW is ready it is not collected and
it shows that the complainant is reluctant to take
steps. No PF is paid and praying for time to take
steps. The case is pending from 2021. Hence, no
grounds are made out, prayer rejected. In the result
the case is dismissed for default."
3. Further, a perusal of the order dated
16.07.2024, it is clear that the complainant has paid PF.
The trial Court has passed an order of re-issue NBW to the
accused by hands of the complainant, which shall be
executed through the jurisdictional police. When the Court
has issued NBW to the accused, the same has to be
executed through concerned police. In view of the Rule 8
of Chapter 3 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice,
1968, all processes shall be served or executed by the
NC: 2025:KHC:44598
HC-KAR
police, unless the Court which issues the process,
otherwise directs. Even if the accused was issued with
NBW by the Court, it has to be executed through
concerned police. It is not possible to execute non-bailable
warrant by the complainant. When the Court has issued
NBW to the accused, it is the duty of the concerned police
to receive the non-bailable warrant from the Court. The
non-collection of the NBW by the complainant is not a
genuine ground to dismiss the case. Though the
complainant counsel sought time to take steps, the
learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the complainant,
which is not sustainable under law. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) The order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the
XI Addl. SCJ and ACMM at Bangalore City in
C.C No.7261/2021 is set aside;
NC: 2025:KHC:44598
HC-KAR
iii) The case in C.C No.7261/2021 on the file of
XI Addl. SCJ and ACMM at Bangalore City
shall be restored;
iv) The Trial Court is directed to proceed with
the case in accordance with law;
v) The complainant shall appear before the
Trial Court on 28.11.2025 without seeking
any further notice from the Trial Court.
vi) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
order to the trial Court for taking necessary
action.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
AP
