Smt. Aruna Rao vs M/S Namma Wellness
2025 Latest Caselaw 9843 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9843 Kant
Judgement Date : 5 November, 2025

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Aruna Rao vs M/S Namma Wellness on 5 November, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:44871
                                                       CRL.A No. 1495 of 2023


                    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.1495 OF 2023 (A)
                    BETWEEN:

                    SMT. ARUNA RAO,
                    W/O. NAVEEN S.,
                    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                    FLAT NO.204, 2ND FLOOR,
                    MARS MOUNT APARTMENT,
                    NEAR TATA PROMONT,
                    HOSAKEREHALLI,
                    BANGALORE-560 085.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                    (BY SRI. HANUMANTHA RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR
                    SMT. MEENAKSHI K., ADVOCATE)

                    AND:

Digitally signed by
AASEEFA             1.    M/S NAMMA WELLNESS
PARVEEN                   NO.68/128, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN,
Location: HIGH            REDDY LAYOUT, NEXT TO PRAMOD LAYOUT,
COURT OF                  PANTARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 039.
KARNATAKA                 REP. BY, ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS

                    2.    SRI.SANJEEVAKUMAR R.S.,
                          S/O HULIRAJA RAO,
                          AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                          NAMMA WELLNESS,
                          NO.68/128, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN,
                          REDDY LAYOUT, NEXT TO PRAMOD LAYOUT,
                          PANTARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 039.
                                  -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:44871
                                           CRL.A No. 1495 of 2023


HC-KAR




3.    SMT. SAHANA K.,
      W/O SANJEEV KUMAR,
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
      NO.G024, MARS MOUNT APARTMENT,
      SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, HOSAKEREHALLI,
      BANGALORE-560 085.
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
     THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(4) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2023, IN C.C. No.
16633/2022 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL.C.M.M BENGALURU BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA


                         ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal

against the impugned order passed by the 16 th Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, dated

27.02.2023.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that:

The appellant/complainant has filed a private

complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The case was

registered in PCR No.4767/2022. Thereafter, cognizance

was taken. Then case was registered in

NC: 2025:KHC:44871

HC-KAR

C.C.No.16633/2022 and summons was issued to the

accused by speed post and also through jurisdictional

police. On 08.08.2022, the complainant was present.

Accused was absent. Hence, Court has passed an order for

re-issue of summons to the accused and case was posted

on 14.10.2022. That on 14.10.2022, the Presiding Officer

was on leave and case was posted to 16.12.2022. That on

16.12.2022 complainant absent, no representation for

both sides. Again Court has passed an order to reissue

summons to accused and case was posted to 27.02.2023.

That on 27.02.2023, the Court has passed the following

order.

"Counsel absent.

Complainant absent.

Accused absent.

No representation for both sides. Hence, kept by

-Sd- 27/2/23 Again case is called out at 3.00 PM. Complainant and accused absent. No representation for both side.

-Sd- 27/2/23 Again case called out, at 5.45 P.M. Complainant called out, absent, no representation for complainant. Perused the records. There are more than 6 dates of

NC: 2025:KHC:44871

HC-KAR

hearing running around for more than one year for steps and also for service of summons and execution of NBW and to furnish the process fee. But the complainant inspite of sufficient opportunity were given, the complainant continuously remained absent and failed to take steps. Insptie of order, process also not paid continuously for several dates for hearing. No doubt it is true that the case should not be dismissed either for default or for non- prosecution. But on the other hand, the case has to be decided on merits and the real controversy between the parties has to be adjudicated finally and effectively. But in this case, the complainant continuously remained absent. This shows that, the complainant is not interested in prosecuting this case. The proceedings of this nature is summary in nature as per Section 143 of N.I. Act, which is required to be concluded in respect of trial within six months from the date of filing the complaint. But, complainant continuously remained absent. Hence, this Court has no option but to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution Hence, complaint is dismissed for non- prosecution".

3. A perusal of this order sheet it is crystal clear

that the complainant has furnished the process fee to

issue summons to accused. Court has also issued the

summons and same was not executed. After passing the

NC: 2025:KHC:44871

HC-KAR

order for re-issue of summons to the accused, it is the

duty of the Court to see that whether the summons is

served or not. Without passing any order on issuance of

summons, the Court has dismissed the complaint for

default and non-prosecution, which is not sustainable

under law.