Point of Law: Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.

JUDGMENT :

K. NATARAJAN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants who are the legal representatives of the complainant before the trial Court challenging the order of dismissal of the case for non-prosecution in C.C. No. 746/2010 dated 24.12.2011 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Hosadurga, Chitradurga District.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The rank of the parties before the trial court is retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The brief facts of the case is that, Raju filed a complaint before the trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’) against the respondent-accused alleging that the cheque issued by the accused was dishonored due to insufficient funds. In spite of issuance of legal notice, the respondent-accused has not replied or complied with the said notice. After taking cognizance, the trial Court issued summons to the accused and the presence was not able to secure. Therefore, non-bailable warrant has been ordered to secure the presence of the accused. But the same was returned unexecuted. Subsequently, the case was posted for taking steps on 26.11.2011. On 26.11.2011 and 24.12.2011, the complainant and his counsel remained absent and steps were not taken. Hence, the complaint came to be dismissed for default. Assailing the same, the legal representatives of the complainant filed a review petition before the Sessions Court, Chitradurga which came to be allowed and restored the case in the original file. Assailing the same, the respondent–accused approached this Court by filing Crl. Pet. No. 8475/2018 and taken contention that the revision is maintainable against the dismissal of the complaint under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. Based upon the submission, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of Revisional Court with a liberty to approach the Court by filing an appeal. Accordingly, the appellants are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the complaint. In spite of taking cognizance and issuing the summons to the accused, the presence of the accused was not able to secure by the trial Court. Such being the case, one more date was given for securing the presence of the accused by issuing further warrant through Higher Officer. Therefore, the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the entire complaint as default, which is not correct. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent-accused has objected the same and contended that the appellants are the legal representatives of the original complainant. They filed an appeal without seeking permission of the Court and also they entered the case as legal representatives only after dismissal of the complaint and not obtained permission of the Court. Even in the Revision Petition, they have not made the accused as party and further contended that the entire contentions or grounds urged by the learned counsel has to be raised before the trial Court. Hence, prayed for rejecting the appeal.

7. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the point that arises for my consideration is:

“Whether the order under challenge by the appellants in this appeal calls for interference by this Court?”

8. The order sheet of the trial Court reveals that the original complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused for taking appropriate action. The cheque issued by the complainant was towards the legally dischargeable debt. The complainant himself has given sworn statement and got marked the documents and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 6.10.2016 and issued summons to the accused to be present befo