Cr1.P.3388:'2098
IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA AT BAN_(3}ALf}R§'§__f. _
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY 91? APREi;*'2€§§39: "ff « _ _: "
BEFORE
THE Hozrnm DR. JGSTICE §H4mTm::;@:9$§La§';
CRIMiNAL PET1TIo1i'L'LN t).3388]2.Q'0s": %'
BETWEEN:
Yelahanka Merchants " _ .
Finance Company Pvt.*-Ltd., '
Bypass, B 8 Road, ;
Yelahanka, if '
Banga1ore--56O (3534. _ '
Rep. by Rs Niaziager.
And G P A Hcxkier,
Smt. Giruja, L' V
W] 0 Gar§1ti'a;3pa..
_Adv. pctitionerj
AND: 'V V
" Chandrashckar Ajngithaya,
S/'o P Na:-ayaizga Rae,
" 'A -« i,Ag§:i '64 ycam,_ "
; (if ljpahara Daxshjni Hotel,
Ksmfc Bus Stand,
-..,..
Petitioner
Respondent
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Pmcedurc, praying to set aside the order dated 1.10.2007
passed by the XX Add}. Small Causes Judge and XVII! ACMM,
crmsssszzoos
St
Bangalore, in C C No.20145/ 2004 and rcston': the same by provixiing
an opportunity to the complainant to proceed with the motion
This Petition coming on for Admission this
made the following: "..
ORDER
The petitioner/compla1n’ ant uoxlsjtho
of xvzu Add}. Chief Mennpoman at is before
this Court under Section Cnmmalf ‘ Proccdum,
praying for ogsgief 1.10.2007 dismissing the
complaint fof_défo.u1t.:
2. Learned » Counékgl ..for_ the petitioner submits that the
Complainagiit and were present and made sincere cflbrt to
tho”‘§?anant to the respondent] accused, but the mural’
suficicnt opportunity, dismissed the
T’ v fo1*’oofi–pmsocufion. He fiuther submits that the
‘it-ptaid process on 25.5.2097 for issuance of NBW to the
the same was rotumed un–cxe-outed 11 10.9.2007. On
the oomplainant and his Counsel oould not be pmsent
the case was adjourned to 1.10.2007, on which date the
CrLP.3388!2098
3
complainant and Advocate were pmsent and they pmycdvfqr-._tia3e, but
the trial Court dismissed the complaint for default fdinere
were no good gmunds. : ‘
3. Keeping in View that the comp:;aint’cam_ to foéf___
nolrprosecution before service of st1mm0ins”o_n the >a;g.”eueec1,’:.;1’c;tiee..to
the respondent] accused is dispenseclijwith. V. ‘
4. Perused the trial Cqufl
5. “Court issued summons to the
accused. SuVi)$ee1uen’tIy,A’~tIje…’–~’:txial Court has issued NBW to the
oyder eLheet._,pextajning to 12.7.2006 shows that service
¢’1i1}yV ordered to reissue NEW to the accused by
V RPAB The order sheet of the trial Court shows
that on “::>.,4′.2e”{) ‘z and 95.5.2907, pmcess fee was paid and ordered
Vtc$u}’r;~iss:;e Again on 23.7.2007, process fee has been paid and
I» has been m—issued to the accused. Keeping in View that
t}:;e”<jemp1ainant has paid process fee on many occasions and the
V has not been executed, it is the duty of the trial Court to take
appropriate steps against the concerned for not executing the
EM".
Crl.P.3388/2008
4
warrant. Under such circumstances, the trial erred in
rejecting the complaint on the ground that steps not_4te_:kei1.._by the
complainant. In other words, the trial Court ‘ the
complaint in a cavalier manner. If the .i:_ot”‘:§este1eti,”
complainant would be put to Iosef3{ 4.:
the impugned order calls for interfemnce-.V” _V .
6. In the result, the Peti1io1i”‘e«i§” ‘*a11ow’e’d,_ ‘The order
dated 1.10.2907 made in No;:2o’1245j2’oo4 5:1’ the 51: of xvm
Add}. Chief’M’a:gist1*afe”at fiangaloxe, is set aside and the
matter is (301111: with a direction to re-
register in its dispose of the case, in accordance
. The peuf1tie.x1er/ complainant is also directed to appear
Vhbefohiae “the on 1.6.2009 for filrther steps Without notice.
is directed to transmit the lower Court records to
* the f1ia;1_zCc>h1t forthwith.
Judge
Bjs