Karnataka High Court
Dr.M.J.Mohan vs Anil Kumar B.R on 27 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42642
CRL.A No. 446 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 446 OF 2014 (A)
BETWEEN:
DR.M.J.MOHAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O JAYARAM
SECRETARY
VENKATESHA EDUCATION
SOCIETY, ARMS STRONG ROAD
BANGALORE-560056
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANDESH P. NADIGER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ANIL KUMAR B.R.
MAJOR
CHAIRMAN, S.A.V.E.
C-1, KASA LAVELLE-1
LAVELLE ROAD
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN BANGALORE-560001
N AND ALSO RESIDING AT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NO.95, M M ROAD
KARNATAKA FRAZER TOWN
BANGALORE-560005.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MUNIRAJU D.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADV.,
FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:1.3.2014
PASSED BY THE XIII ADDL. CMM, BANGALORE, IN
C.C.NO.8398/2007 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42642
CRL.A No. 446 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal against the
order passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore (for short "the trial Court") in CC
No.8398 of 2007 dated 01st March, 2024, whereby the trial
Court has discharged the accused under section 256 of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2. Sri Sandesh P. Nadiger, learned Counsel for the
appellant would submit that the trial Court has taken
cognizance against the accused/respondent under section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and case was registered in
CC No.8398 of 2007 and summons were issued to the accused.
In response to summons, accused appeared before the Court
and accused was released on bail. Thereafter, NBW was issued
to the accused on several occasions. On 25th October 2013,
accused was present and filed recall application. The same was
allowed. Memo filed reporting settlement. Then case was posted
NC: 2025:KHC:42642
HC-KAR
to 01st March, 2014. On that day, the Court passed an order
that the accused and complainant were absent and complainant
advocate present. But settlement was not reported. Hence
accused discharged under section 256 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. Learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant
would submit that though the respondent/accused undertook to
pay the amount, he has not complied with the same. Hence,
the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable and
accordingly, the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal.
3. Respondent Counsel remained absent. There is no
representation for the respondent. Hence, argument on behalf
of respondent is taken as nil.
4. I have examined the materials placed before me.
The appellant has filed complaint under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and case was registered in
PCR No.18 of 2007. After taking cognizance, case was
registered in CC No.8398 of 2007 and summons were issued to
the accused. Certified copy of the order sheet, which is not
legible, reveals that on 11th March 2008, accused was released
on bail upon executing bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety
NC: 2025:KHC:42642
HC-KAR
for the likesum. Then case was posted to 26th May 2008. On
that day, accused was absent and NBW was issued against the
accused. Thereafter, from time to time NBW was issued to the
accused till 22nd September, 2008. On 22nd September, 2008,
accused was absent and exemption petition was filed. Counsel
for the complainant was not present. Hence, case was posted
to 02nd March, 2009. Thereafter, vide Notification No.ADM 1 (A)
1072/08, the case was transferred to XIX Additional Chief
Metropolitan Court, Bengaluru. Then the case was posted to
02nd March, 2009. Thereafter, NBW was issued to the accused.
On 08th July 2009, case was advanced and was taken on Board.
Accused was present and NBW was recalled with fine of
Rs.1,000/-. Then, the case was posted to 04th September,
2009. On 04th September, 2009, the accused remained absent
and NBW was issued. Thereafter, case was adjourned from
time to time till 08th January, 2010. On 8th January, 2010
Exemption petition was filed and the same was allowed. Then
case was posted to 21st January 2010. On that day, the
Presiding Officer was on leave and hence case was adjourned to
08th March, 2010. Thereafter, case was posted to 13th April,
2010 and further on 22nd April, 2010. On 22nd April, 2010, on
NC: 2025:KHC:42642
HC-KAR
behalf of both the parties, application under section 147 of Code
of Criminal Procedure was filed in which it is stated that accused
has agreed to pay sum of Rs.2,60,000/- to the complainant
towards due amount in respect of Cheque dated 03rd June,
2006, and the case was posted on 26th May, 2010. Then case
was posted to 26th May, 2010. On that day, there was no
representation. Hence case was posted to 23rd August, 2010.
Thereafter, NBW was issued to the accused from time to time
till 01st March, 2014. On 01st March, 2014, Court has passed the
order as under:
"01.03.2014
Complainant absent
Accused absent.
Complainant advocate PT to report settlement.
Settlement... (writing not clear)..
Settlement neither reported settlement not
reported. Hence accused discharged under Section 256
of Cr.P.C."
5. On perusal of the order sheet, as also the Application
filed under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act by both
the parties, it is crystal clear that the trial Court has not passed
NC: 2025:KHC:42642
HC-KAR
any order on the Application filed under 147 of NI Act. The trial
Court has not assigned any reasons for not passing any order
on the said application. Though NBW was issued against the
accused, same was not returned. However, the trial Court has
not taken any steps to see whether NBW was executed or not.
The trial Court has passed the order without following the due
procedure contemplated under Code of Criminal Procedure and
also under Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice. Viewed from
any angle, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not
sustainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) Order dated 01st March, 2014 passed in CC
No.8398 of 2007 by the XIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is set aside;
iii) CC No.8398 of 2007 on the file of XIX Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, shall
be restored to its file;
iv) The complainant/appellant shall appear before
the trial Court on 01st December, 2025, without
seeking for further notice;
NC: 2025:KHC:42642
HC-KAR
v) The trial Court is directed to take necessary
steps to secure the accused and thereafter
proceed with the case in accordance with law;
vi) Registry to send the copy of this order along
with the trial Court records to the concerned
Court for taking necessary action.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
