IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7253/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI.SHA RAJESH, PROPRIETOR, SHOWOFF CLOTHING CO., R/AT NO.452, 22ND CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MUNIYAPPA., ADV.) AND:
SRI NEERAJ KUMAR AGARWAL S/O JAGADISH AGARWAL, M/S. SHOWOFF, HIS & HER HIGH FASHION BOUTIQUE, R/AT NO.1-8-135/1 B216, VAISHNAV MANSION, SHOP NO.1, P.G.ROAD, SECUNDERABAD-500003 . ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.L.SHREENEVASA, ADV.-ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2015 IN PCR NO.10913/2009 BY THE XVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2015 passed by the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in PCR No.10913/2009 whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner herein.
2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 read with 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (‘NI Act’, for short) before the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the said offence and issued summons to the respondent/accused. The order sheet dated 09.04.2014 discloses that the requisite process fee was paid and notice was directed to the accused through RPAD and case was posted on 28.05.2014. On 28.05.2014, the case was not listed. On 20.06.2015, the complainant was present and notice was again ordered to the accused through RPAD and the matter was adjourned to 25.07.2015. The order sheet of 25.07.2015 reads as under:
“Complainant and Accused are absent. No representation by the complainant. Hence, compliant is dismissed for non-prosecution”.
3. Reading of the entire order sheet discloses that requisite process fee for service of accused was paid on 09.04.2014. There is nothing on record to show that the notice was infact served on accused. Under the said circumstances, without ensuring the service of the notice to the accused, the learned Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the complaint. As a result, impugned order dated 25.07.2015 can not be sustained and same is liable to be quashed.
In view of the above, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court. The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
The complainant shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 25.04.2019 without any further notice.
JS/-
Sd/- JUDGE