- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9771 WP No. 4391 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4391 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. KAVIL K.N, SON OF NANDKUMAR K.N, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 4703, TOWER 4, 7TH FLOOR, DHAMMANAGI SUMO LEAVES APARTMENT, NEAR KSIT COLLEGE, RAGHUVANAHALLI CITY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARADI S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. SUNIL KUMAR K.R, SON OF K.J. RANGANATH, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.384, 1ST A CROSS, SHAKTI GANAPATI NAGAR, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22-03-2024 ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN CC NO.13741/2929 AND ORDER RESTORATION OF COMPLAINT TO ITS ORIGINAL FILE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE VIDE ANNEXURE A. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9771 WP No. 4391 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The private complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was registered on 22.10.2020 by the trial Court. On 11.01.2021, the petitioner-complaint's advocate was present and requested the Court to issue summons to the accused by hand/RPAD. On 20.03.2021, the complainant's advocate requested the Court to issue summons to the fresh address of the accused. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the matter was adjourned multiple times from 10.05.2021 onwards. On 11.05.2022, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, and notices were issued to both the complainant and accused. Thereafter, the complainant did not take steps for issuing notice to the accused. As a result, on 22.03.2024, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution, since neither the complainant was present nor was he represented by his counsel. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Although sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to take out steps for issuing notice to the accused, the complainant states that due to a communication gap, he could not instruct his counsel to take steps. If the complaint is not restored, the complainant will lose his valuable right to recover the money under the subject cheque, which would be unjust. Restoring the complaint will not cause any prejudice to the accused. On the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9771 WP No. 4391 of 2025 contrary, failing to restore the complaint would result in a monetary loss to the complainant if he were to succeed in the case. ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.13741/2020 is hereby set aside and the complaint is restored to its file. iii. It is needless to states that in the event the complainant fails to take steps from the next date of hearing, the trial Court to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT: BHK