IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5829/2013 BETWEEN:
Sri. Veerabhadrappa, S/o. Lakshmanappa, Aged about 48 years, Residing at Thagachaguppe Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk – 560 074. …Petitioner (By Sri. V. Shankarappa, Advocate) AND:
Sri. K.N. Venkatesh, S/o. Late Muthanarayanappa, Aged about 48 years, Member of K. Gollahalli Grama Panchayath, Devagere Colony, K. Gollahalli, Kumbalagudi Post, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South – 560 074. … Respondent (By Sri. M.V. Hiremath, Advocate – absent) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the dismissal order dated 06.08.2013 in C.C.No.2941/2009 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, as per Annexure – A.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Perused the records. Counsel for respondent is absent.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.2941/2009 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, has been dismissed for not taking steps.
3. The order sheet reveals that the complaint was presented to the Court on 25.01.2013. Summons were issued to the accused on 09.03.2013. Since the summons were not served on the accused, NBW was ordered. Even the NBW having not been executed, the learned Magistrate directed re-issuance of the warrant to the accused. Since, the petitioner failed to pay the requisite process fee and did not appear before the Court on 06.08.2003, the learned Magistrate was constrained to dismiss the petition.
4. I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Even the order sheet of this Court discloses that even though the petition was filed in the year 2013, petitioner complied with the office objections only in the year 2019, which indicate that the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the complaint.
5. Nonetheless, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has sought to recover a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from the respondent and the respondent has not opposed this petition, in the interest of justice, petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.2941/2009 is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry within 15 days and on deposit of the said amount, trial Court is directed to restore the complaint on board and thereafter, proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE SV