IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY or NOVEMBER we _
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE B, aoxwfna " a
Criminal Petition of
Between
Sri. Suresh Nagaraj Shastry,
S/0. Nagaraj Shastry; "
Aged about 39 Years,
R/at. T, 17-4, Apartments-..,:T'_ «
No.15, Hitech _Cii;ad_el, % ,
19th Cross, 1'/"Fh
Padmanaba;1ia{ga,f;'~ " ' ., x --
Banga,i0re--70_ b A
:.{By_ sri.' Kalyan R, Adv.)
A53-ri;{B - . V
s'/o."Not
Aged«..abr:_iu' i;- .34 years,
_ LR/at '1: 1&2 Apartments,
0, Surya Residency,
"«7*F%M"a_.in, Rajeev Nagar,
. __ a~_B'a1*1aShankari 3rd Stage.
Bangalore -- 85.
... Petitioner
... Respondent
[By Sri. Pramod P Kulkarni, Adv.)
This Crl.P filed U/s.4s2 Cr.P.C by the adVOCf;tt3 for
the petitioner praying that this Hon'b1e Cou_rjt.V.rnay""be
pleased to set aside the impugned order dt: _6g7.09i'passe'i
by the ism ACMM, at Bangalore in c.cM.No;rp 3403/2009*-._
and to remand the matter to the_Tri_aI Court" '1"ri_a.l and » _
for disposal in Accordance with law. '
This Criminal Petitiongroomingporn for Admissio'1f1,"thisg
day, the Court, made the foilofiv-i.ng: ' _
........0 R.._.D;E;I: ..
The petitioner has aside the order
dated order the 163* ACMM,
at Bangaio-re"j;in.ii?:C.'No';-f34l03';"2'009 and to remand the
matter the it r
2. Facts
th.e.’e’case are:
petiti’oi1er__.fi~led a private complaint against the
Iesponderitiv’«runder Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with
Sections and 142 of Negotiable instruments Act
hhefore trial Court. The trial Court taking cognizance of
,,:rjth.er’o:ffence issued summons to the respondent and the
case was adjourned to 08.05.2009 for the appearance of
(55 ‘
the petitioner. As the learned magistrate was on leave on
that date it was adjourned to 18.05.2009 and it was
entered so in the ‘A’ dairy and petitioner had”
the same but later the date of hearingu
18–O7~2009, and the case u.ras’ca11ea -:on.:_”»’i_8,V0.*S.2009;.___V0″:
29.05.2009, 10.06.2009, _23.06.2009 anaionr 06.’0’7.i2009
the case came to be dismissed ‘for r10n~pf0sec1ition.
3. Learned C0ur1″se1- apineariiivgpphfior the petitioner
submits that as the pt’3t:Vi”Ci”CviI1(_=i1″«ifi!)_”£€,t_i date of hearing as
18-073-*0Q”:3′;~i.V’.’ ltflhe appear for the case on
29.05.2009. __2:’3.06.2009 and on 06.07.2009
and therefore prays for setting aside the impugned
restorathe case to the file and give him an
‘ have a trial on merit of the case.
Perditzontra, learned Counsel appearing for the
it ‘respondent submits that the case was adjourned from
“‘v5!3.’0’5.23009 to 18.05.2009, neither the petitioner nor his
0’ “ueourisei was present on 8.05.2009 and they were not
present even on the subsequent dates. Thereforepthe trial
Court has rightly dismissed the ease for non.p.p’rosefcut~ion
and there is no ground for setting aside
order and he prays for dismissal.ofithe~
5. In order to appreciate “the rival con’tent_ion.s 5of the
parties, the Bench Clerk of ..3Cn?ourt”i7iras’p,Fiummoned
along with ‘A’ Dairy. 0 Dairy that on
8.5.2009 the ii1~s.ioa2009 and later
it was who does this
mischief-i~s_’n’o_t’ th’es.petitioner had noted down
the ne:;§:t_’.__18.07.2009 as noted in the ‘A’
Dairy Ar;-0vt”..–“”1have attended case between
toAAV06v;-0–7′.2009. So, dismissal of case on
non prosecution is bad in law.
Consider_ing’1..V_irt is a cheque case filed by the petitioner
‘*,aga3Znst,t’i-ie respondent for the offence punishable under
138 and 139 of N. I. Act and the Presiding Officer
on leave on 8.05.2009 and the petitioner had noted
3….
down the next date of hearing as 18.07.2009 as .i”ioted in
the ‘A’ Dairy he should not be made to téi1.i1t
of his.
6. Accordingly Criminal Petiton
dated 05.07.2009 passed b’3¥,§n.g; 15tI1AeMMi éit”‘Ba1iga1oreC’
in c.c. No. 3403/2009 isxi-hereby..?’_set’ ‘aidetf c.c. No.
3403 / 2009 is The petitioner
and the resooiifient nihefore Court are
directed Court on 06. 12.2010
udthout’w”aitif:-g foifi: an”y’*.v;:iotice”f1°oii1 the trial Court.
Sd/1
Ifidcfe