Karnataka High Court
Shri Kallappa S/O Hanamantappa Gund vs Irfan A Solapur on 20 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:839
CRL.A No. 100389 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100389 OF 2022 (378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI. KALLAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA GUND
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED,
R/O. VICTORIA ROAD, SAI ONI,
HUBBALLI-580022.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH NARGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
IRFAN A. SOLAPUR
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
MANTUR ROAD, BHANDIWAD BASE,
MAKANDAR GALLI, HUBBALLI-23.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(4) OF CR.P.C.
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH SEEKING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE
Date: 2025.01.22
15:00:40 +0530
NO. 116/2019 DATED 12.11.2021, UNDER SECTION 138 OF N I ACT,
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC
COURT, HUBBALLI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:839
CRL.A No. 100389 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. IA No. 2/2022 has been filed for special leave. Accepting the reasons provided in the accompanying affidavit, IA No. 2/2022 is allowed. The appellant is permitted to proceed with the appeal.
2. The appellant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for offences punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint alleges that the cheque issued by the respondent-accused, for a legally recoverable debt, was returned for insufficient funds when presented for realization. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, issued summons to the accused for the aforementioned offences.
3. The accused appeared before the trial Court, and the accused remained absent subsequently, which prompted the trial Court to issue non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the accused. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed stating that despite opportunity being granted, the complainant did not choose to take steps for issuing non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the accused.
4. Although the complainant was served with notice, he remained absent and was placed exparte.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court indicates that the accused after appearing before the Trial Court, -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:839 CRL.A No. 100389 of 2022 subsequently remained absent, and therefore, NBW was issued to secure his presence. Despite granting sufficient opportunity for more then 3 years, the complainant did not choose to take steps and the complainant has not diligently prosecuted the case. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order.
7. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.
8. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR Ct:vh