IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3304 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
MISS ROHINI S IYENGAR, D/O LATE SRINIVASA IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.654, 14TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, J P NAGAR II PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT: BHARATHI.M. ADVOCATE FOR SRI: VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. M/S SUN LIGHT PICTURES, REPRESTNED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI BAALU, S/O JAYARAME GOWDA, R/A NO.944, 7TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 060.
2. SRI BAALU @ KRISHNEGOWDA S/O JAYARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PROP. M/S SUN LIGHT PICTURES, R/A NO.944, 7TH MAIN, 7TH CORSS, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 060. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: S L KAMATAR, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2015 PASSED BY THE XXII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE DISMISSING THE C.C.NO.8191/2012 IN PCR NO.5371/2012 AT ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE LEARNED XXII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE TO PROCEED WITH THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2015 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8191/2012 dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/complainant had filed two complaints against the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They were numbered as C.C.No.8191/2012 and 8186/2012 respectively. Presence of the complainant was noted on 2.3.2015 in C.C. No.8186/2012 whereas, in C.C.No.8189/2012 by noting the absence of the complainant, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution and hence, she seeks to set aside the impugned order and restore the complaint on to file.
3. It is seen from the records that on 2.3.2015 the learned Magistrate has ordered NBW to the respondent in C.C.No.8186/2012 and the matter was thereafter called on different dates whereas, the instant case came to be dismissed for non appearance of the petitioner.
Since both the cases were clubbed and pending on the file of the learned Magistrate, it was not proper for the learned Magistrate to dismiss the complaint. It is submitted that in C.C.No.8186/2012, the respondent was secured and after trial, he was convicted and in the appeal, matter was compromised between the parties.
4. Having regard to the above, in the interest of justice, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.8191/2012 is set aside. C.C.No.8191/2012 is restored to file. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 13.06.2019 without waiting for further notice Sd/- JUDGE rs