Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16298 (KAR)

MATRU MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL v. MR. SHIVAMADAIAH T N

CRL.P/11825/2025 · 2026-02-17

M Nagaprasanna

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9728 CRL.P No. 11825 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11825 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: MATRU MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL NO. 425, 6TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079 REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDER/ CHAIRMAN, DR. S.K. MAHENDRA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. SHIVAMADAIAH T.N. FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9728 CRL.P No. 11825 of 2025 AGED MAJOR, R/AT ADARSHANAGALINGAPURA ROAD, KOLLEGALA TOWN, CHAMRAJANAGAR - 571 440. 2. MS. SAVITHRI H. S. W/O MR. SHIVAMADAIAH, T.N., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT ADARSHANAGALINGAPURA ROAD, KOLLEGALA TOWN, CHAMARAJANGAR-571 440. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2025 PASSED IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL.CMM, BENGALURU IN CC NO.5846/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. RESTORE CC NO.5846/2019 IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL.CMM, BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9728 CRL.P No. 11825 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Nishanth A.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the complainant. The respondent, the accused, the two have a transaction. The transaction leads the complainant to the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the NI Act' for short). The concerned Court registers C.C.No.5846/2019. Owing to the continuous absence of the petitioner/complainant, after the appearance of the accused, the concerned Court passes the following order: "Accused Present. Complainant called out absent. Case called again and again at 2.00pm. 3.25 p.m. No representation from Complainant side. The defence counsel submits to dismiss the complainant as the complainant remained absent and by proceeding with complaint would no purpose. On perusal of order sheet, it indicates that, inspite of granting repeated opportunity and by imposing repeated cost, the complainant has not chosen to offer for cross examination. It indicates that the Complainant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9728 CRL.P No. 11825 of 2025 is not interested in proceeding with the complaint. It appears by granting further time would serve no purpose. As no grounds forthcoming to grant further adjournment, and having the sworn statement which is being treated as the complainant evidence is been discarded the complaint is dismissed for non prosecution." The concerned Court observes that the complainant has not chosen to appear before the Court to offer for cross-examination, which was indicative of the fact that the complainant is not interested in proceeding with the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed for non-persecution. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be maintainable, as the complaint is dismissed only for its non-persecution. 4. The said submission is unacceptable as after the appearance and the conclusion of examination, the complainant does not offer himself for cross-examination. It would not mean that the proceedings are at the threshold stage, evidence had commenced. The absence of the complainant throughout for not cross-examining the accused and the consequent dismissal of the complaint for its non-prosecution would undoubtedly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9728 CRL.P No. 11825 of 2025 mean that the accused is acquitted of the offence as obtaining under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and if he is acquitted, a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would not be entertainable. The petitioner has to file an appeal against the said order. 5. Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14