IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8210/2018 BETWEEN:
B.R. SIDDARAMU S/O R. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123.
(BY SRI. VISHNUMURTHY., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. ANANTHALAKSHMI B.L W/O MOHAMMAD KHUDUS AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS STAMP VENDOR, SAR COMPUTER JOB WORKS, LAKSHMI VALLABHA BUILDING, NEXT TO D.K. TRENDS OPP SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE PERAMANNA LAYOUT, B.H. ROAD NELAMANGALA TOWN(TQ) BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT–562 123 AND ALSO AT:
SMT. ANANTHA LAKSHMI W/O MOHAMMED KHUDUS STAMP VENDOR, R/A NEXT TO KUMARI‘S HOUSE (EX MUNICIPLE PRESIDENT) ... PETITIONER T.B. STOP, SUBHASH NAGAR MAIN ROAD, MUNICIPLE QUARTERS ROAD, NELAMANGALA TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 123 ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LEANRED XXXVII ACMM, BANGALORE VIDE DATED:10.04.2018, WHICH IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE IN CRL.RP.NO.653/2018, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED:01.10.2018 AND RESTORE THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGIANST THE RESPONDENT IN PCR.NO.6958/2017, WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.15581/2017 AND DIRECTED THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE TO DISPOSE THE ABOVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and perused the records.
2. Petitioner who is the complainant in PCR No.6958/2017 had filed said complaint against accused alleging that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’ for short) Said proceedings which was initially pending before XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore was transferred to Small Causes Court, Bangalore as per notification dated 20.11.2017. It was also notified in the Notice Board as well as indicated in the order sheet. Subsequently, petitioner has not appeared before learned trial Judge. Though learned Advocate appearing for petitioner has contended that he was not aware of proceedings having been transferred to different Court and as such, he had no knowledge and therefore he could not have taken steps, is an argument though looks attractive cannot be accepted inasmuch as, notification under which case came to be transferred does not pertain to petitioner - complainant alone, but all those matters were pending before said Court insofar as it related to Section 138 of the NI Act stood transferred. Be that as it may. The fact remains that subsequent to order of transfer, petitioner and his counsel have remained absent. As such, one final opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner conditionally.
3. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
(ii) Order dated 10.04.2018 passed by XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.15581/2017 is set aside and complaint is restored to the file of jurisdictional Court for being disposed of on merits and in accordance with law, subject to petitioner producing receipt for having deposited costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority.
(iii) Petitioner shall appear before jurisdictional Court on 15.05.2019 without waiting for further notice and trial Court shall proceed from the stage it was listed on 10.04.2018.
SD/- JUDGE *sp