IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9417 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI. MADAN MOHAN, S/O LATE. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO. 22, MADHANAHALLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK- 561 208.

CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RUDRESH N., S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT YALABURGI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by KARAHALLI PANCHAYATH, LAKSHMI T BANGARPETE TALUK- 563 114.

Location: H igh KOLAR DIST.

Court of Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GUNASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE AND SRI. BHARATH L., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2024, IN C.C.NO.1418/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GOWRIBIDANUR AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE FILE IN C.C.NO.1418/2019 , ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GOWRIBIDANUR, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the complaint filed by him against the respondent alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The impugned order dated 18.05.2024 shows that on the said date, complainant and his counsel remained absent and there was no representation and therefore, the learned Magistrate observing that even after giving several opportunities, complainant/PW1 has failed to tender himself for cross-examination, proceeded to pass the impugned order, dismissing the complaint for non-

prosecution.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the complainant was diligent in prosecuting the complaint, but due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not appear on the relevant date. He submits that the cheque amount is ₹3,00,000/- if the complaint is not restored, then, petitioner will be put to great hardship.

4. The complaint is filed in the year 2019. The order sheet of the trial Court would indicate that both the complainant as well as the accused have remained absent on several occasions.

5. A case of this nature cannot be kept pending before the trial Court for an indefinite period. As the complainant failed to appear for cross-examination, the learned Magistrate having no other option, dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that henceforth the complainant will prosecute his complaint diligently without remaining absent before the trial court. Hence, this Court is inclined to show some leniency. The complaint can be restored to the file and complainant can be given an opportunity to prosecute the complaint, however by imposing cost. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed with cost.

(ii) Order dated 18.05.2024 passed in C.C.No.1418/2019 by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gauribidanur, is set aside, subject to payment of cost.

(iii) The complaint shall be restored to file and the learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.

(iv) The complainant and the accused shall appear before the trial Court, without further notice, on 10.11.2025 (v) The complainant shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), out of which, a sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the respondent/accused and the balance Rs.5,000/- shall be transmitted to the ‘District Legal Services Authority, Chikkaballapura’.

Sd/-

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4