IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P NO 4145 OF 2013 BETWEEN NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH R/A NO.277 MAHADESWARA NAGAR VISWANEEDAM POST BANGALORE 560 091 ... PETITIONER (By Sri SHANKAR G - ADVOCATE) AND SRI A M MANOHARAN S/O MADURAI NO.12/16, 8TH STREET JOGUPALYA, ULSOOR BANGALORE 560008 ... RESPONDENT (SERVED - UNREPRESENTED ) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.06.2013 PASSED BY THE XII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.15494/2010 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND RESTORE THE COMPLAINT ON ITS FILE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT TO CONDUCT TRIAL AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent is duly served and unrepresented.
Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2013 passed by XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.15494/2010 has been dismissed.
3. Records reveal that on presentation of the complaint, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused returnable by 28.08.2010. The order sheet further reveals that summons were directed to be re-issued to the accused returnable on 12.06.2013. On 12.06.2013, without verifying as to the service of summons on the accused, the learned Magistrate proceeded to dismiss the complaint by noting the absence of the complainant. In the impugned order it is noted that the complainant has not taken steps for issuance of summons to accused. On 13.12.2013 the learned Magistrate had ordered re-issuance of summons to the accused. In the said circumstance, it was required by the learned Magistrate to ensure that the said summons have been duly served on the petitioner or returned unserved. Records do not indicate that any report has been submitted to the Court with regard to service or non service of summons to the accused. In the said circumstance, the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint is not proper and cannot be sustained.
4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed. The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE rs