SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 441951

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
G BASAVARAJA
J.C. FLOWERS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
MANIKANTAN A M – Respondent
CRL.A 2014/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2014 OF 2024 (A)

BETWEEN:

J.C. FLOWERS ASSET

RECONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,

(ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS

TRUSTEE OF JCF YES TRUST

2022-23/1)

A COMPANY INCORPORATED

UNDER THE COMPANEIS ACT, 2013, AND

REGISTERED AS AN ASSET

RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PURSUANT,

TO SECTION 3 OF SARFAESI ACT, 2002,

AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT,

12TH FLOOR CROMPTON GREAVES,

HOUSE, DR ANNIE BESANT ROAD,

WORLI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, 400030

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED

Digitally signed by

SIGNATORY, MR MANIMARAN S

AASEEFA

PARVEEN …APPELLANT

Location: HIGH (BY SRI S SUSHANT VENKATESH PAI.,ADVOCATE)

COURT OF

AND:

KARNATAKA

MANIKANTAN A M,

AGED MAJOR,

NO. 16, 3RD CROSS, MOTAPPA LAYOUT,

ANANDAPURA VARANASI,

KRISHNARAJAPURAM, NEAR MOTHER,

TERESA SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560036.

ALSO AT:

MANIKANTAN A M,

AGED MAJOR,

KRAYONS INTERIOR SYSTEMS PVT LTD, NO.43, P M COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, ULSOOR, BANGALORE - 560008.

…RESPONDENT (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.11.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378 CR.PC (FILED U/S 419 OF BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO1) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIX ADDL. CMM AND ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, CITY CIVI COURT, BENGALURU (SCCH-17) IN C.C.NO.7261/2021. 2) CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE C.C.NO.7261/2021 TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XIX ADDL. CMM AND ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU (SCCH-17)3) GRANT COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant who is the complainant has filed the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The Trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and case came to be registered in C.C.No.7261/2021. On 19.08.2024, the trial Court has passed the following order:

"Complainant present.

Learned counsel for the complainant prays time to take steps. Sufficient time already granted. Inspite of repeated issuance of NBW, the complainant is not taking steps to secure the accused. In the last date of hearing on the request of complainant, it was ordered to Issue NBW by the hands of complainant which shall be executed through jurisdictional police. Even though the NBW is ready it is not collected and it shows that the complainant is reluctant to take steps. No PF is paid and praying for time to take steps. The case is pending from 2021. Hence, no grounds are made out, prayer rejected. In the result the case is dismissed for default."

3. Further, a perusal of the order dated

16.07.2024, it is clear that the complainant has paid PF. The trial Court has passed an order of re-issue NBW to the accused by hands of the complainant, which shall be executed through the jurisdictional police. When the Court has issued NBW to the accused, the same has to be executed through concerned police. In view of the Rule 8 of Chapter 3 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, all processes shall be served or executed by the police, unless the Court which issues the process, otherwise directs. Even if the accused was issued with NBW by the Court, it has to be executed through concerned police. It is not possible to execute non-bailable warrant by the complainant. When the Court has issued NBW to the accused, it is the duty of the concerned police to receive the non-bailable warrant from the Court. The non-collection of the NBW by the complainant is not a genuine ground to dismiss the case. Though the complainant counsel sought time to take steps, the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the complainant, which is not sustainable under law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

i) Appeal is allowed ii) The order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the XI Addl.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top