- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37732 CRL.RP No. 452 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.452 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. NEKARA KURUHINA SETTY PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA KURUHINA SETTY HOSTEL RAVINDRA NAGAR, HASSAN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI Y.K.JAVAREGOWDA, S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, KUVEMPUNAGAR, HASSAN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN P.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. THAMMAIAH S/O ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O KALUDEVARAHALLY VILLAGE, SEEGE POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 PASSED IN C.C NO.4096/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN AND TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE TRAIL COURT FOR FRESH DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37732 CRL.RP No. 452 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is noticed that the complaint filed by the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is dismissed for non- prosecution for not taking steps for service of notice on the respondent-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in M. THULASIDASA V. K. GOVINDARAJU1. Relying on the said judgment it is urged that since the impugned order is passed before appearance of the accused/respondent, without hearing the respondent/accused, the impugned order may be set-aside. 4. It is also noticed from the copy of the order sheet which is made available by the learned counsel for petitioner, that the petitioner had paid the process fee for service of notice 1 (1995 CRI.L.J. 1660) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37732 CRL.RP No. 452 of 2025 to the respondent-accused. However, the notice was not issued pursuant to the process fee paid. The accused has not appeared before the Trial Court. Thus, the complaint could not have been dismissed for non-prosecution for not taking steps for service of notice to accused. 5. Considering the cause shown, and keeping in mind the ratio in M. THULASIDASA V. K. GOVINDARAJU supra the impugned order is set aside. 6. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to provide opportunity to the complainant to take steps to the respondent- accused. 7. Accordingly, the complaint in C.C No.4096/2018 on the file of the VI Additional JMFC, Hassan is restored and the complainant shall take necessary steps for service of notice to the respondent-accused. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE ST List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7...