- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13306 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1316 OF 2011 BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATH K N S/O.NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O.KOLIHALLI VILLAGE 572 168 HIREHALLI POST, URDIGERE HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SRINIVAS B S/O.BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O.VENKATAPURA, VOKKALERI POST, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT 563 101 WORKING AT LIFT OPERATOR, JALAPPA HOSPITAL TAMAKA, KOLAR - 563 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SRINATH B V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M R NANJUJNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13306 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2011 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.05.11.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. C.J. (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., AT TUMKUR IN C.C.NO.1480/2009 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the complainant/appellant challenging the order dated 05.11.2011 passed in C.C.No.1480/2009. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the complaint and also would vehemently contend that when an exemption application was filed before the Trial Court, question of dismissing the case does not arise and ought to have consider the said - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13306 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2011 application. The counsel submits that inspite of exemption application was filed before the Trial Court on 05.11.2011, the Trial Court did not mention the same and even not passed any order on the said application and certified copy of the said application is produced before this Court to show that the application was filed under Section 256(2) of Cr.P.C. The counsel further submits that the matter is not considered on merits. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that several opportunity were given to the appellant, inspite of it, not lead any evidence and hence, cannot find fault with the Trial Court in dismissing the complaint. 5. Having taken note of the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the certified copy of the application placed before the Court, it discloses that the said application seeking exemption of appearance of the appellant on the date of dismissal of the case but no order was passed by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13306 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2011 the Trial Court while dismissing the complaint on the said application. The record also discloses that the Trial Court not simply dismissed the complaint but also acquitted the accused. Having considered the said fact into consideration, it is appropriate of set aside the order dated 05.11.2011 passed by the Trial Court and matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the same afresh. 6. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 29.04.2025 without expecting notice from the Trial Court. 7. The Trial Court is also directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six months since it is the case of the year 2011 and almost 1½ decades have been elapsed. The complainant is directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the matter since the order sheet of the Trial Court discloses that complainant is not pursuing the matter diligently. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13306 CRL.A No. 1316 of 2011 8. Having taken note of the fact that the complaint is filed for non-payment of Rs.50,000/-, no cost is imposed. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN