- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22523 CRL.A No. 1118 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1118 OF 2025 (A) BETWEEN: STEPHEN GNANAVEL S/O SUNDARAM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT 189/240, VIMOCHANA NAGAR, BEHIND SHAMS SCHOOL, GOVINDA SHETTY PALYA, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY, 1 BENGALURU - 560 100. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. C. PALANI S/O CHINNAPPA MANDRI, DEAD BY LRS. (AS PER INFORMATION RESPONDENT DIED ON 08.01.2024) SMT. SIRAGAMI W/O LATE C. PALANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. MANJULA D/O LATE C. PALANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22523 CRL.A No. 1118 of 2025 3. MANIKANTAN S/O LATE. C. PALANI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 4. THAMARAI D/O LATE C. PALANI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT 994, 33RD STREET, PASE-II, SATHUVACHARI, VELLORE, TAMILNADU - 632 009. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R4 IS D/W V/O DATED 26.06.2025) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C (FILED U/S 419(4) OF BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DATED 12.03.2025 PASSED IN CC NO.8796/2023. BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND TO REMAND BACK THE CASE WITH A DIRECTION TO RESTORE THE CASE IN CC NO.8796/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT TO ITS ORIGINAL STAGE BY GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO LEAD EVIDENCE AND TO DISPOSE THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22523 CRL.A No. 1118 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Manjunath M.R., for the appellant. 2. Notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 is dispensed with. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that, the Trial Court vide its order dated 12.03.2024 passed an order by dismissing the complaint without giving an opportunity to take steps to the accused. 4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, it is appropriate to refer the order of the Trial Court , which reads as under: "Counsel for complainant and complainant absent. Already sufficient opportunity given to the complainant to appear before the court. The party is not diligent but still on humanitarian ground and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the court has adjourned the case several times. However from the conduct of the parties it appears that the party isn't at all interested in the case. This case is one of the oldest cases of this court. Strict directions and reminders were given to dispose the oldest cases within time frame. In order to implement the guidelines of Hon'ble Apex court and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22523 CRL.A No. 1118 of 2025 Hon'ble High court, to expedite the trial, this court is seeking assistance of bar members for speedy disposal. The Hon'ble Apex court in Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. [(2011)9 SCC 678 held "…A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit whether the plaintiff or the defendant must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they do not, they do so at their own peril.." In view of the above, this court dismisses the complaint for non-prosecution and non appearance." 5. The order of the Trial Court though appears to be appropriate, the fact remains that, the accused did not appear before the Trial Court inspite of steps having been taken by the appellant. When the summons to the accused is not served and steps to be taken by furnishing the correct address, the Courts are to be lenient, especially, when the accused residing at Bengaluru. Sometimes, it would be difficult to trace the correct address of the accused as he could not disclose the proper address to the complainant/appellant. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that one more - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22523 CRL.A No. 1118 of 2025 opportunity must be given to the appellant to take proper steps. 7. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru. ii) The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case from the stage the case has been dismissed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9