JUDGMENT :

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard Sri R.H.Angadi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant and Sri Shrishail M.Jatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, the appellant is the Complainant before the trial Court and had initiated a Complaint under Section 138 and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘NI Act’) against the respondent herein. The appellant is an Organization duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying its business in the name and style as M/s Sri Ram Finance Co. Ltd, having its registered office at Chennai. It has got a branch at Mudhol and is represented by its Product Executive (Legal) of the concerned Branch. It is stated that the respondent had availed financial facility from the appellant to purchase TATA ACE vehicle bearing Registration No.KA48/ 2320 and accordingly the respondent after accepting financial facility had executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement bearing No. MDOLBO 407230003 at Mudhol Branch along with relevant documents. Respondent did not repay the amount as agreed, he due to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-towards repayment of installments, for which respondent issued cheque bearing No.101708 dated 07.09.2017 drawn on Axis Bank, Saidapur Branch for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-.

Appellant presented the said cheque for encashment on 02.09.2017 through its banker. The said cheque came to be dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Account closed’.

4. Pursuant to dishonour of the cheque appellant got issued legal notice which was duly served on the respondent, but respondent failed to pay any amount demanded as per legal notice nor replied to the legal notice. In view of non-payment of the amount demanded, appellant filed a complaint before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. After cognizance was taken by the learned trial Judge a criminal case came to be registered in CC No.634/2017.

5. After recording the sworn statement the trial Court proceeded to issue summons, since the same was not accepted by the respondent, NBW came to be issued and after granting several opportunity for taking steps despite issuance of NBW, the appellant continued to take out fresh process on the very same address, which was not being served on the respondent. On 23.08.2019, trial Court passed the following order:

“Complainant absent. Sri YKJ for SCU prays time for steps no grounds made out. Further furnish PF and prayed to reissue NBW to the accused at the very same address. On 26.02.2019 NBW was issued to the accused at the very same address but is returned as since last 1 year accused left the address. Now by once again reissuing NBW to the accused at the very same address no purpose will be served by reissuing NBW to very same address. Hence prayer of Sri YKJ is rejected complaint is dismissed for non prosecution.”

Aggrieved by the said order appellant has approached this Court for setting aside the dismissal order.

6. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends the GPA Holder of the appellant company is the only person authorized to appear in various cases to adduce evidence and in that process the appellant was prevented to appear before the trial Court to lead evidence. Thereafter the trial Court provided an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence and when they sought time, the trial Court rejected the same. In the present case, though the summons was issued to the respondent on the address as mentioned by the respondent in the loan agreement, the same could not be served because the respondent was evading service of summons. Despite issuance of NBW, the respondent was deliberately avoiding the notice and the jurisdictional police were unable to secure the presenc