Sri Anilkumar vs Raviraj Naik on 28 August, 2008

 

IN THE HIGH COURT 0&3'   
cmcurr BENCH AT     

DATED THIS THE 28'1;§"DAY'C3FV:A1}'_C}'§j§'§f'20D$

 

THE HoN'Bi,;_E MI§.qf.fSE?1y:fE«R.B.N)5;Ik.

CRIMINAL APEfI_T1'1{ 3VN1\:t'):v Qérggi 2003

Between

Sri.  '-~   *-
S/0. Venkatssh  
Aged about 3'! years, ' _ " 
Occupation; Bixsmess, '

 -V P1'opIf.¥.ct{;r_£>f MaI1iiiA_$srJciatcs,
  N';C,VM; I-1:11:11." 

    _
% Rs1*m\aj..' T 

Age: Major, Occ: Business,

& 'Daimler,
'  __ '0pp; Sharma Transport,
 T  Lxdustrial Estate,
  Gtaktxl Road, Hubli.

(By Sri. Mahesh Wadayer, Advocate)

: Petitioner

: Rcspondcnt

Wm



 

2

This Crimizlal petition is filed under Sect..if0n"'-V482 of
Cr. P. C., by the Advocate for petitioner praying~~--to.._ _qi;1a$h the
order dated 22.04.2008 passed in C.C.No. 1496}200€~._"'byfe?MvFC-
II Court Hubli.    .   

This petition coming on for 0I':C1CI"é;sA_Ati;£ViS 2a'a y t.'1f1e2  J

the following: V , r

   by the origma' lcomplamant
I have goVv1'*1eV thro   Proceedings were initiated

again' 51;, the "a.ecu$ed¥ree§ondent herein under Negotiable

 Inatnknienis Act,  was taken, summons were issued,

  examined himself. On 25.02.2008

V   petitioz_1Ver5'eo3'1iip1ai11ant filed an affidavit evidence, got marked

  On that day, as the counsel for accused-

'respondent was absent, cross-examination was taken as nil.

 .: 'On.i0.03.2008, an application ms. 311 Cr.P.C., was filed and

 same came to be allowed and the matter was posted for eross«

examination of the complainant on 22.04.2008. As on the said

1

Xbmutk



 

date, both the counsel for complaint and the  were

absent, the case was called in second session . at 13.32.

Even then, both of them were not p~l'ese;nt,_ as   to 

be dismissed for default on 22.04.2(i):O8:}__

2. It is submitted   for petitioner--
complainant had gone to   a case and he was

under the    ease in Dharwad

and reach }£1liiii'.'eo:-llrt '1ly'--.:the"' the case could be called.
Since hsvicg-glid'  the ease in Dhalwad court, he

could not    The complainant was waiting for

his  tel  .... As such, he also did not enter the court

V .:i8?it.31_o':;1t  jfidvocate.

.'   the reasons assigned by the counsel may not

  be__a suiiieeiitvleasons to upset the order of dismissal in order to

i   fair opwrtunity to the complainant to prosecute his case,

"  {held that order of dismissal of the complainant for default

  tiated 22.04.2008 requires interference on payment of costs.

V Hence the following: A 2 ' K



VR/---

ORDER

Criminal petition is allowed. V:V:::u1″c1’er 4;ié.t_t=:c’f

22.04.2003
C.C.No.1496/2006 is set aside.”‘-iiie matter is back to
the trial court with a dirfectgion id t’ne'< :ase, from the

stage. set down on 20.03.2dG8 <fi:L1:f1"V:'1:;?-,:.y_:;r::_n§t:fix:*,. §i'1.t:ost of Rs.5{)0/ —.

passed by the "VV J