IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.580 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
I.V. Prabhudev S/o. Late I.P.Veerupaksha, Aged 64 years, R/at No.203, A Block, Neeladari Mahal Apartments Nandidurg Road, Jayamahal Extention, Bengaluru-560046. ...Appellant (By Sri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate) AND:
Mr.B.V.Sumanth S/o. B.G.Vasanth, Aged about 37 years, R/at Flat No.3, Bush Apartments, No.195, Defence Colony, 6th Main, 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560038. ...Respondent (By Sri. Manjunatha H.B. Advocate) This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the judgment and order dated:21.01.2016 passed by the XV Addl. C.M.M, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.25015/2014 – acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
This Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Called again in the afternoon. None appear in the matter.
2. A perusal of the order sheet would go to show that, in this appeal of the year 2016, considering the submissions made by the parties that there was an element of settlement in the matter, several adjournments were given to the parties. It appears that the matter was also referred to the Mediation Centre. After return of the matter from the Mediation Centre, the parties are not evincing any interest in reporting the settlement, get it recorded, getting the matter disposed of.
3. Despite granting the adjournment, there was no representation in the matter, as such, on 13.12.2018, as a final opportunity, time was granted and then, the matter was listed on 17.12.2018. On the said date also, there was no representation. Thereafter, when the matter is listed today, there is no representation in the matter from either side when the matter was taken up in the first round. Thus, it has to be taken that the parties, much less, the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.
4. Though, normally a criminal appeal would not be dismissed for non prosecution, it is an appeal not against the judgment of conviction, but, it is against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
In the light of the above details, it is clear that the appellant is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter, as such, the appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE GH