Karnataka High Court
Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar vs Mr Venkatesh N on 24 January, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
CRL.P No. 3894 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3894 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MR.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O P L N MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RES. NO.20/1, D STREET
PIPELINE ROAD
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560003
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMESH H N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR VENKATESH N
S/O MR NAGARAJ L
R/A NIVIKA, 19TH CROSS
5TH PHASE, 22ND MAIN
MUNISWAMY GARDEN
J P NAGAR
NEAR MANGO TREE
BENGALURU-560078
Digitally signed by
BHAVANI BAI G
2. AKSHAYA SOWBHAGYA SILKS CENTRE
Location: High Court of REP BY ITS PROP MR VENKATESH N
Karnataka
LOCATED AT NO.832/82
OLD GOTTIGERE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560061
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY KASHYAP S., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2021
PASSED IN C.C.NO.1025/2019 BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN
-2-
CRL.P No. 3894 of 2021
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.
ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT
PETITION, THEREBY RESTORING THE SAME AND DIRECT THE TRIAL
COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of dismissal of the complaint for default for not taking steps vide order dated 16.03.2021 passed by IV Additional Civil Judge and ACM, Bengaluru.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent remained absent.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of N.I. Act for dishonour of the cheque issued by the respondent. After taking cognizance, the trial Court issued summons to the accused, subsequently, NBW has been issued, the accused remained absent and thereafter, on 21.03.2020, -3- CRL.P No. 3894 of 2021 the respondent-accused appeared before the Court and filed an application under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. along with Section 445 of Cr.P.C. and also Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court recalled the NBW by imposing penalty of Rs.200/-. Thereafter, released the respondent-accused on bail on executing bond for Rs.5,00,000/- with cash of Rs.3,000/- and accordingly, the accused-respondent was released on bail on 21.03.2020. Subsequently, the Courts were closed due to COVID-19 Pandemic and as per the SOP of the High Court. Later, the case were adjourned and finally on 16.12.2020, the trial Court directed to take steps to issue notice to the respondent- accused and subsequently, 16.03.2021 the complaint came to be dismissed for not taking proper steps which is under challenge.
5. On perusal of the records, especially the order sheet reveals, the accused was already appeared before the Court and obtained bail after recalling the order issued on 21.03.2020. As per the Central Government order as well as SOP of the High Court, from 24.03.2020, the lockdown were implemented due to COVID-19 pandemic and thereafter -4- CRL.P No. 3894 of 2021 gradually the Courts were started functioning and started conducting trial through video conferencing. The order of the trial Court dated 16.12.2020 reveals, the case is posted for taking steps and on the very next date of hearing i.e., on 16.03.2021, dismissed for not taking steps. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the complaint for not taking steps is erroneous and not in accordance with law. Once the accused appeared before the Court and released on bail and when the matter is posted for recording plea on 07.05.2020, when the accused was remained absent and when the courts were closed due to COVID-19 pandemic, the trial Court ought to have summoned the accused voluntarily by issuing Court notice or else in the absence of the accused, the Court also forfeited the bond and thereafter, NBW has to be issued for taking steps. But, here in this case, once the accused is released on bail, it is the duty of the accused to appear before the Court without any further notice to him. But the trial Court ignoring the order passed by the same Court on 21.03.2020 and posted the matter for taking steps as could as no steps were taken by the complainant from the beginning -5- CRL.P No. 3894 of 2021 which is not correct. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order of dismissal of the complaint for not taking steps is hereby set aside and the complaint is restored to the file.
Therefore, the parties shall appear before the Court without any further notice on 06.03.2023.
Office to intimate the same to the trial Court. If the accused is not present before the trial Court, the trial Court can take coercive steps to secure him before the Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37