Bangalore District Court
Dtdc Express Ltd vs Lucky Collection on 29 January, 2026
KABC010262092024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY [CCH.63]
Dated: This the 29th day of January, 2026.
Present:
Sri. Raghavendra S. Channabasappa, B.A., LL.B (Spl).,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.499/2023
PETITIONER: DTDC Express Ltd.,
DTDC House No.3,
Victoria Road, Bangalore-560 047.
Repted. by its Sr.Legal Manager
Sri.Shivaprasad.
(By Sri.P.K.Venkatesh Prasad, Advocate.)
- V/S -
RESPONDENT : Lucky Collection,
G Floor, Chimni Road,
Opp: M.S.Fashion Hub,
Near Saini Glass House,
Preet Nagar, Shimlapuri,
Ludiana, Punjab-141003.
By its Prop: Sri.Iqbal Singh.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of 38th ACMM., Bengaluru in P.C.R.No.7336/2024 to set-aside the order dated: 12.09.2024 and to allow the revision petition and set- 2 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024 aside the order dated: 13.06.2023 passed in PCR No.7336/2024 on the file of 28th ACMM., Bengaluru by dispensing the notice issued to the respondent/Accused.
2. Parties to this revision petition shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial court for the purpose of convenience and for better appreciation of their contentions.
3. In the Revision petition, the petitioner/complainant had initiated a private complaint U/Sec. 138 of N.I. Act r/w. Sec.200 of Cr.P.C against the accused. The complainant is Courier and logistic company having its Regional office at Bangalore and accused is the Franchise of complainant company since September 2019 is required to make payment under the terms of Franchisee Agreement made between complainant and accused. Under the terms of Franchisee Agreement the Respondent/ Accused became liable to pay transhipment over due amount of Rs.15.10.997/- to the petitioner/complainant herein. The accused towards the discharge of transhipment amount as part payment with respect to courier business has issued a cheque bearing No.008817 dated 27.01.2024 for Rs.5,69,999/- respectively drawn on IDBI Bank, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, Punjab to the petitioner/ complainant. The complainant had presented the aforementioned 3 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024 cheques issued by the Accused to their Bankers Axis Bank Ltd., Basaveshwar Nagar branch, Bangalore for encashment. The cheque issued by the Accused was dishonoured for the reason "Funds Insufficient" vide Bank endorsement dated: 30.01.2024. Further submitted that the complainant had issued the Legal Notice to the Accused on 16.02.2024. The said Notice issued to the Accused was unserved as per intimation on delivery issued by postal authority on 20.02.2024. The complainant was filed on 31.02.2024 before 38th ACMM at Bangalore and again in view of jurisdiction cognizance was not taken against the accused for recording sworn statement due to delay of 8 days in filing the complaint. Then the case is posted on 16.07.2024 for issuing summons to accused. In the month of July the RPAD cover duly addressed to the accused along with process was paid in the office. But it was unserved the RPAD cover and mentioned the shara on the order sheet accused not traced. However, the complainant counsel has not attended to the Court thereafter due to admit to the hospital for taking medical treatment due to severe allergic problems. Thereafter the counsel for the complainant/ petitioner was not able to know whether the RPAD was served/ unserved to the accused due to not able to attend to the Court due to taking medical treatment in the hospital. However the accused is 4 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024 residing in outside of the Karnataka state it is very difficult to take the summons through police when the accused residing out of the state jurisdiction. Hence the same is complied U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act in the above case. The Hon'ble Court after continuously hearing the case posted the case for taking steps. But however due to unable to attend the Court due to unhealthy condition of the complainant/petitioner counsel finally on 12.09.2024 the complainant is dismissed for default. The order passed on 12.09.2024 by the 38th ACMM is erroneous without applying the mind that the accused is not residing in the present address by considering the unserved cover which has returned while sending legal notice before filing the complaint. The Hon'ble Court not considered the submission that he has sent a email to complainant to furnish the fresh address of accused for the purpose of sending summons he has not able to give correct address of the accused. Hence the petitioner counsel submitted the matter may be closed in the presence of complainant. On that day due to death ceremony of his mother he is not in a position to come to the Court to give fresh address since accused was residing outside the jurisdiction is not known to complainant to give immediately. The Hon'ble Court came to the conclusion by dismissing the complaint for dismissing the complainant for non- 5 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024 prosecution by not giving some more time to trace the address of the accused where the accused was residing in Punjab is difficult to trace the address immediately to the complainant/ petitioner herein. Thereafter the complainant counsel collected the certified copy of the order passed on 07.10.2024 by 38 th ACMM., Bengaluru by dismissing the complainant due to not verified the same whether the order was genuine or not. Thereafter the complainant Advocate has filed this petition against the dismissal order of complainant passed by 38th ACMM., Bengaluru. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned 38 th ACMM at Bangalore in P.C.R. No.7336/2024 by the order dated: 12.09.2024 dismissing complainant for Non-prosecution.
4. After observation by the learned 38th ACMM., Bengaluru has passed the order in P.C.R.No.7336/2024, dated: 12.09.2024 aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing present CRP for setting-side and for other appropriate remedies, on the following among other grounds:-
1) The Trial Court has dismissed the complaint due to absent for attending death ceremony of his mother on particular date to give fresh address of the accused. The Hon'ble lower Court default without giving opportunity to the petitioner/complainant to take steps is devoid of merits and law.6 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024
2) The order passed by the Trial Court is otherwise opposed to law, facts, and probabilities of the case even not considering the submission that he has informed to complainant to give fresh address of accused on particular date.
3) The petitioner has not preferred any other Appeal or petition on the same facts and grounds urged before this Court.
Even otherwise, the complaint before trial Court is bad in law and liable to be set-aside.
5. Heard arguments, perused the records.
6. Now, points arising for determination are as follows:
1. Whether the petitioner has made-out sufficient grounds to set-aside the Order, dated: 12.09.2024 in P.C.R. No.7336/2024 passed by the learned 38th ACMM., Bengaluru?
2. What Order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. POINT No.1:- In order to establish the case of petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated: 12.09.2024 is highly illegal and liable to be set-aside. The facts of the case is this petitioner has filed 138 of NI Act against the respondent. Being aggrieved impugned order passed 7 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024 by the trial Court on 12.09.2024 to dismiss the complaint for non- prosecution. Hence, the petitioner preferred with revision petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner who is complainant before the Trial Court in PCR No. 7336/2024 complaint filed against respondent/accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act for recovery of amount of Rs.15,69,999/- due under the cheque it was dishonoured with drawer stop payment and issued Notice against the accused for seeking payment due under the cheque. The said Notice was served on the accused, finally filed complaint before the Trial Court U/Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act to punish the accused in accordance with law. He further argued that when case posted on 12.09.2024 that the complainant and his counsel called-out absent, no representation from the complainant side, upon going through the Order sheet it appears that the complainant and his counsel have remained absent since longtime without proper representation. Hence, this revision against the impugned order dated: 12.09.2024 for seeking set-aside the said order and restore the complaint for its original stage in PCR No.7336/2024.
10. On the other hand, it perused order sheet of this Court dated: 12.09.2024 it is in PCR stage and not taking cognizance of the case, so issuance of summons exempted in this case. 8 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024 Therefore, issuance of summons in this revision against the accused/respondent does not arise and also Notice against respondent already dispensed.
11. It is observed that the order of trial court dated 12.09.2024 that the complainant and his counsel called-out absent and there was no representation from the complainant side. Hence, the petitioner filed this revision for seeking restoration the complaint in PCR No.7336/2024 for its original stage by set aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2024.
12. It is further observed that, Sec.397 of Cr.P.C and its ingredients :-
The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Revision is a legal remedy that allows a superior court to examine the legality and propriety of an order passed by a subordinate court. It is filed in a higher court and can be sought on the grounds of error of law or of fact, which is apparent on the face of the record.
13. Hon'ble High Court or any Sessions Court may call for and examine the records of any proceedings before inferior Criminal Court situated within its or his local jurisdiction for the 9 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024 purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court and may when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of record. All the Magistrates, either Executive or judicial and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction shall be deemed to be inferior to the sessions judge for the purpose of Sec.397 of Cr.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner is that the complaint in PCR No.7336/2024 was dismissed for non- prosecution and they seeks to restoration of the above said case for its original stage. The trial Court should not dismissed the case merely non-appearance of the complainant unless his presence required. Further this petitioner being compliant in PCR No.7336/2024 before the trial Court and filed complaint against the respondent/accused under Sec.138 of NI Act to punish the accused under Sec.138 NI Act and directing him to pay double the cheque amount in respect to Rs.15,69,999/-. Further, the complaint was dismissed for not taking effective steps against the accused in PCR No.7336/2024 since matter belongs to 2024, the Supreme Court of India also observed in various cases in this 10 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024 regard, therefore opportunity should be given to the petitioner to prosecute the case before the Trial Court. Further, there is a available effective steps with different modes, without directing the complainant to take effective steps simply dismiss the case against the complaint it is very prejudice to the complainant and also irreparable financially loss to him, any Court should decide the case on merits. But not otherwise. Therefore, having considered grounds of the petition and also facts and circumstances of the case, hence it is a fit case to allow the petition with cost. Therefore, the petitioner has made-out grounds to allow the revision petition. Hence, my answer to the above Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.
14. POINT NO.2:- In view of the discussions made on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner U/Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C/438 of BNSS is hereby allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Order dated: 12.09.2024 in PCR No.7336/2024 is hereby set-aside.
The matter in PCR No.7336/2024 is hereby restored for its original stage and proceed the case on merits.11 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024
Issue intimation to the concerned Trial Court along with Judgment immediately.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer Gr-II, typed by him directly on computer, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of January, 2026.) (Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.12 Crl.R.P. No.499/2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, VIDE SEPARATE ORDER ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner U/Sec. 397 of Cr.P.C/438 of BNSS is hereby allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Order dated: 12.09.2024 in PCR No.7336/2024 is hereby set-aside.
The matter in PCR No.7336/2024 is hereby restored for its original stage and proceed the case on merits.
Issue intimation to the concerned Trial Court along with Judgment immediately.
(Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.