IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI Crl.P. No.9460/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri B R Nagesh Prop: B R Enterprises Aged about 45 years R/a Rajeev Gandhi Road J P Nagar, 6th Phase S Kariyappa Road Bengaluru-560078. … Petitioner (By Sri M V Revanasiddaiah, Advocate) AND:
Sri H Kumar, s/o Hanumaiah Aged about 40 years, R/a No.26 2nd Main, Ranganathapura Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru – 560079. . ... Respondent This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to set aside the entire records in Crl.RP No.378/2015 on the file of the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Court (CCH -68) at Bangalore City examine the legality and correctness of the order dated 4.9.2018 and allow this petition.
This petition is coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a) Call for the entire records in Criminal Revision Petition No.378/2015 on the file of LXVII Additional City Civil and Session Judge (CCH-68) at Bengaluru City, examine the legality and correctness of order dated 04.09.2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No.378/2015 in the file of LXVII Additional City Civil and Session Judge (CCH – 68) at Bengaluru and set aside the order dated 04.09.2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No.378/2015 in the file of LXVII Additional City Civil and Session Judge (CCH- 68), at Bengaluru by allowing this petition.
b) Call for the entire records in P.C.R. No.25542/2013 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru City, order dated 21.12.2015, for reference to consider the legality of the above order of Revision court.
2. Complaint was lodged under Section 138 of N.I Act. There were dishonour of two cheques issued by the petitioner, B R Nagesh for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- each. Petitioner had appeared through his counsel and objection was filed to the interim application. There was a delay of 23 days in filing the complaint. An application was preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of condonation of delay, whereas Trial Court proceeded to make observation that delay has not been properly explained by the complainant. Accordingly, it was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, complainant, H Kumar filed a criminal revision petition before the LXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Benagaluru City (CCH No.68), Bengaluru. Criminal Revision Petition was allowed on 4th September, 2018. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that delay of 23 days is required to be examined and the same has been taken note by the Revisional Court.
4. Paragraph No.7 of the order passed in Crl.RP No.378/2015 reads as under:
“Point No.1: It is clear from the enquiry done by the trial court that the complainant was suffering from ailment as to back pain and viral fever. Therefore, he could not able to attend the court. The trial court in spite of the reason assigned, has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution on 8.07.2014. Again it has been restored in view of Crl.Revision Petition No.385/2014 on the file of Hon’ble Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Inspite of it, after enquiry, the dismissal of complaint is not justified. Hardly 23 days has been delayed by the complainant and that itself is not debar the complainant from seeking the justice. It is also pertaining to note that there was an issue as to jurisdiction raised in view of dictum in Crl.Appeal No.2287/2009 of Apex Court in “Dasharath Rupsingh Rathod .vs. State of Maharashtra and another”. All these factors should have been considered by the trial court. Hence, the revision petition deserves to be allowed at this stage. The medical certificate and the explanation offered needs to be considered and the trial court is at discretion to impose cost for the delay. That apart, dismissal of the complaint itself is not justified. “Section 142” of N.I.Act provides for condonation of delay for just cause shown by the complainant after prescribed period. Hence, the revision petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the Affirmative.”
Reasons stated supra by Revisional Court in respect of delay, no interference is called for. Petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the order passed in Crl.RP No.378/2015 decided on 4th September, 2018.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Bkm Sd/- JUDGE