- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40096 CRL.A No. 63 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT SHANTALA @ NAGALAKSHMI P.C AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O LATE SHIVARAMU.B.S, R/AT 4TH CROSS, VADDARA COLONY, MALAVALLI TOWN, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA R, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O JAYARAMACHANDRA, R/AT HOUSE NO.8, NEAR CHAITRA HIGH SCHOOL, SHIVAPURA, H.D.KOTE, MANANDAVADI ROAD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANU VENKATA REDDY V, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALAVALLI IN CC.NO.1287/2022 DTD 25.07.2024 AND MAYBE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE CC.NO.1287/2022 ON ITS FINE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40096 CRL.A No. 63 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.07.2024 in C.C.No.1287/2022 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) whereby the Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant for non prosecution. 2. The abridged facts of the case are that, the appellant/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act' for short) for dishonor of the cheque issued by the accused. After filing of the complaint, the complainant and her counsel remained absent before the Trial Court on several occasions. Finally, when the case was posted for cross-examination of the complainant, complainant and her counsel remained absent. As such, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint for non prosecution observing that the complainant is not willing to proceed with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40096 CRL.A No. 63 of 2025 the case. Against the said dismissal, the complainant approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel Sri Shivananda R., for the appellant and learned counsel Sri Manu Venkata Reddy V., for the respondent/accused. 4. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the absence of the complainant and her counsel before the Trial Court is neither intentional nor deliberate but only bonafide one. On two hearing dates, due to personal inconvenience of the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant and her counsel remained absent and he submit that if an opportunity is extended to the complainant, she will appear along with her counsel before the Trial Court without fail. 5. The said submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent and he vehemently contended that the complainant has not explained any acceptable reason to recall the order and she intentionally remained absent before the Trial Court. To buttress his arguments he relied the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of K.K. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40096 CRL.A No. 63 of 2025 Construction vs. Shri Bhagwan Singh Poswal and Others reported in 2024 (2) RLW 1461. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it could be gathered from records that on three occasions, the complainant and her counsel were remained absent before the Trial court. Though the matter was referred to Lok-Adalat by the Trial Court, the complainant and her counsel also remained absent. As such, the Trial Court has opined that the complainant is not interested to prosecute the complaint. 7. Though the grounds urged in this appeal to set-aside the order is not convincing, since the question involved in the complaint is of financial transaction, hence an opportunity deserves to be extended to the complainant to prosecute the complaint filed by her by imposing reasonable costs in the interest of justice. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40096 CRL.A No. 63 of 2025 ii. The order dated 25.07.2024 in C.C.No.1287/2022 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli is set-aside. The complaint is restored to its original file. iii. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 05.11.2025 without expecting any further notice. iv. The appellant/complainant shall pay a costs of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent/accused on the date of appearance before the Trial Court. v. It is made clear that the complainant shall be present in person before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearing. vi. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5