C H Devraj vs Dr Neelakanteswara Swamy on 25 September, 2014

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

C H Devraj vs Dr Neelakanteswara Swamy on 25 September, 2014

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                             1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                    BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.740 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

C.H.Devraj,
Late C.C.Hanumantha Rao,
Aged about 73 years,
No.4, Benson Town,
Benson Road,
Bangalore - 560 046.
                                     ...PETITIONER

(By Shri. Nitin .R, Advocate for Shri. Sunil Dutt Yadav.S,
Advocate)

AND:

Dr. Neelakanteswara Swamy,
Director,
Sanford School of Nursing
And Paramedical Sciences,
Katha No.134, Nagarabhavi,
2nd Stage, Apoorva Layout,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 010.                  ...RESPONDENT
                                 2




(notice to respondent is dispensed with)
                              *****

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by
the advocate for the petitioner praying to set aside the order
dated 17.8.2013 in PCR.No.7967/2010 before the XV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

      This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court
made the following:

                           ORDER

There is a delay of 309 days in filing the petition.

2. The present revision petition is preferred against the dismissal of a complaint in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act', for brevity). It transpires that the court below had taken cognizance and had directed issuance of summons. However, since process was not paid and in spite of repeated adjournments there was non- compliance, the complaint was dismissed for default. 3

3. It is stated that the petitioner remained unaware of the same, as his counsel had retired from active practice and did not keep him informed of the progress of the case. It is only after more than 300 days after the order was passed, that the petitioner woke up to the reality, as it is claimed that he was an aged person and did not have the assistance of anybody else to follow through and it is by chance that he has learnt of the dismissal and therefore, the present petition.

In the light of the fact that the respondent was never put on notice of the present case, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. Though no fault can be found with the court below in dismissing the complaint for default, the reason assigned by the petitioner that his counsel had retired from active practice and the petitioner was unaware of the same, is a plausible reason. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The complaint is restored to file. The petitioner shall pay the process fee at the earliest on 4 resumption of the proceedings before the Lower Court, failing which the law shall take its course.

The petitioner shall appear before the court below without any further notice, on 27.10.2014.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court