Karnataka High Court
Sri M Goutamchand vs Sri Sridhar on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45113
CRL.A No. 697 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 697 OF 2024 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI M GOUTAMCHAND
S/O SRI MOTILAL
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.41,N.K. PALYA
1ST CROSS, A STREET
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 051
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MADURAJA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RENY SEBASTIAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SRIDHAR
STAFF TRAINING COLLEGE
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A FACULTY DEPARTMENT
Location: HIGH 11TH A LANE, PRABHAT ROAD
COURTOF PUNE 411 004.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(V/O DATED: 07.11.2025
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 21.01.2017 PASSED BY THE XXI ACMM,
BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.11842/2016 DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER FOR NON-PROSECUTION
AND TO RESTORE THE SAME.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45113
CRL.A No. 697 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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 impugned order of dismissal of the complaint
for non-prosecution dated 21.01.2017 in
C.C.No.11842/2016 on the file of the XXI ACMM,
Bangalore.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal is that the
complainant/appellant had filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
before the Trial Court. The case was registered in PCR
No.3944/2016. After sworn statement, the case was
registered against the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of N.I. Act in C.C.No.11842/2016 and
summons was issued to the accused. Accused had refused
the summons. Hence, the service was held sufficient.
Then, a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued to the
NC: 2025:KHC:45113
HC-KAR
accused. NBW was not returned. Thereafter, the case was
posted from time to time till 21.01.2017. That, on
21.01.2017, the trial Court has passed an order as
'complainant absent, kept by' and again it has passed an
order as under:
"Called on again at 5.30 pm.
Steps not taken inspite of sufficient opportunity
given. Hence the complaint is dismissed for non-
prosecution.".
3. A perusal of the order sheet dated 08.07.2016,
27.07.2016, 02.09.2016, 19.09.2016, the complainant has
paid the process fee. Though, the complainant has taken
steps for issuance of NBW from time to time, the Trial
Court has ignored the same and mechanically passed the
order. Once, the NBW is issued against the accused, it is
the duty of the Court to see that whether NBW is executed
or not. If the NBW is not executed, the Court has to call
for a report from the concerned Police. Thereafter, the
NC: 2025:KHC:45113
HC-KAR
Court has to pass suitable orders. Instead of that, in the
case on hand, though the complainant has taken steps,
the Trial Court has blindly passed an order that
complainant has not taken steps, which is apparently
illegal, perverse and not sustainable in law.
4. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
a) The appeal is allowed.
b) The order passed by the XXI ACMM,
Bangalore in C.C.No.11842/2016 dated
21.01.2017 is set aside and C.C.No.11842/2016
shall be restored.
c) The complainant/appellant is directed to
appear before the Trial Court without seeking
any further notice on 03.12.2025.
NC: 2025:KHC:45113
HC-KAR
d) The Trial Court is directed to take
necessary steps to secure the accused, in
accordance with law.
e) It is made clear that the Trial Court shall
not insist for payment of process fee as the
complainant has already paid the process fee on
several times.
f) Registry is directed to send the copy of this
order to the Trial Court for taking necessary
steps and to proceed with the case, in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
DM
