IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P NO. 6251/2012 BETWEEN K. MOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O KRISHNARAM, RESIDING AT M.I.G-33, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, MYSORE-23.
(BY SRI. G. B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADV.) AND OGAR RAM CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NAVODAYA PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS, NAYA GOAN ROAD, PALI MARWAR, RAJASTHAN STATE – 306 401.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.8.2011 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3243/08 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.C.J., (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, MYSORE PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.5 AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2012 PASSED IN CRL.R.P. 41/2012 ON THE FIOE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE, PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.6, AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PROSECUTE C.C. NO.3243/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. C.J. (JR.DN.) & JMFC, MYSORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
2. The petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.3243/2008, was dismissed for non-furnishing of process fee for issuance of summons to the accused (Respondent herein). The said order dated 12.08.2011 was called in question in the Criminal Revision Petition No.41/2012 before the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore. The learned Sessions judge also dismissed the revision petition on the ground that sufficient opportunity was granted to the complainant to furnish the process to issue summons to the accused. Against those orders, the petitioner is before this court.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that, on the date of hearing, the complainant remained absent and as there was no representation, the complaint came to be dismissed. It is noticed from the records that the trial Court has granted some opportunity to the petitioner and it is stated that the petitioner was not well on the date of hearing and the Advocate has not represented the case on that day. As the party should not be made to suffer due to the non-representation of the case by the counsel, I feel it just and necessary to grant one more opportunity to the complainant to assist the court by furnishing the process within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, this order will not come to the help of the petitioner and also the petitioner is directed to assist the court for disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible.
4. With the observation, the petition is allowed.
The order passed by the trial Court dated 12.08.2011 in C.C. No.3243/2008 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at Mysore and the order dated 01.09.2012 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysore, are hereby quashed. The C.C.No. 3243/2008 is restored on the file of the trial Court with a direction that, if the process fee is paid within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, failing which the order passed by the trial Court and the Revisional Court shall be in operation.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*