- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41635 CRL.A No. 2195 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2195 OF 2018 (A) BETWEEN: SRI H VENUGOPAL, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MUDDINAPALYA ANJANANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 091. …APPELLANT (BY SRI R KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI HARISH A, GADDADA VENKATESH'S SISTER'S SON, AT DODDNNA CIRCLE, NEAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE, MUDDINAPALYA, YASHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MAHESH R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2018 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.8557/2016 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41635 CRL.A No. 2195 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT Complainant/appellant has preferred this appeal against the Order dated 17th November 2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in CC No.8557 of 2016 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant came to be dismissed for not taking steps. 2. Despite service of notice, respondent remained absent and unrepresented. 3. Learned Counsel for the complainant would submit that the complainant has filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court taken cognizance against accused and case was registered in CC No. 8557 of 2016. Summons was issued to the accused and it was duly served on the accused. On 15th February 2017, accused appeared through his advocate and filed application under section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same was allowed. Thereafter, accused failed to appear before the court, hence NBW was issued. Many times NBW was issued and the same was not executed. Finally, on 7th November 2018, the trial Court has passed the order that the complainant has failed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41635 CRL.A No. 2195 of 2018 to pay the process fee and the complainant is not interested in continuing the case and hence the complaint was dismissed. The learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that PF was paid. However, the trial court has not considered the same. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal. 4. On perusal of the order sheet dated 13th September 2017, it is clear that the complainant has paid the process fee. Thereafter, NBW was issued. When the NBW was issued to the accused after payment of process fee, it is the duty of the court to see that whether the same is executed or not. Unfortunately, in the case on hand, the NBW issued against the accused not returned. The judicial Magistrate has not called for any report from the concerned police for non-return of NBW issued against the accused. Without application of mind, the trial court has dismissed the complaint though the complainant has taken steps against the accused to issue NBW. Hence, the order passed by the trial court is illegal and not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41635 CRL.A No. 2195 of 2018 O R D E R i) Appeal is all allowed; ii) Order dated 17th November 2018 passed in CC No.8557 of 2016, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, is set aside; iii) Case in CC No.8557 of 2016, shall be restored to its file; iv) Complainant/appellant is directed to appear before the trial court on 26th November 2025 without seeking any further notice; v) The trial court shall issue NBW again to the accused without seeking any process fee, as the complainant has already paid the same; vi) Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the concerned Court for taking necessary steps to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 113