- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15462 CRL.P No. 1701 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1701 OF 2019 BETWEEN: IRFAN S/O MUJEEBURRAHAMAN, R/AT NO.09, 10TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, GITTAPPA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: AJAZ S/O ABDUL KALEEM, AVAILABLE AT 848, MAGDUM SAW MILL, NEW BAMBOO BAZAR, BARLINE ROAD PO, DAVANAGERE-577002 …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED BY THE XV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION U/S 5 OF LIMITATION ACT R/W PROVISION U/S 142(B) OF N.I. ACT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN P.C.NO.9584/2017 AND RESTORE THE CASE IN THE FILES OF XV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15462 CRL.P No. 1701 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in PCR No.9584/2017 by which an application for condonation of delay was rejected. He has also challenged an order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.R.P.No.674/2018. 2. (i) The petitioner initiated proceedings to prosecute the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Along with the complaint, he filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the private complaint on the ground that he was involved in the business of garments and had gone to Surat on business and hence, he could not present the complaint in time. Notice of this application was issued to the respondent, who did not claim it and hence, notice to him was held sufficient. The Trial Court considered the reasons mentioned in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15462 CRL.P No. 1701 of 2019 the application and held that the petitioner had not produced a license to prove that he was doing business in garments and that he failed to produce any documents to show that he had gone to Surat to purchase garments. Consequently, it rejected the application in terms of the impugned order dated 30.08.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.674/2018 and the Revisional Court dismissed the same and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. (ii) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has a garment shop in Bengaluru and that he used to procure garments from Gujarat. He contends that the petitioner had gone to Gujarat for the purpose of purchasing garments and therefore, he could not file the complaint in time. He also contends that the respondent has not disputed this and therefore, the Trial Court could not have disputed the contentions urged by the petitioner in support of the application for condonation of delay. He therefore, prays that this petition - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15462 CRL.P No. 1701 of 2019 be allowed and the delay caused in filing the private complaint be condoned. 4. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent, who has not appeared. 5. A perusal of the private complaint shows that the petitioner was a dealer in garments and dress materials and he had opened a shop in Rahamath Nagar in Bengaluru. The cheque in question was issued on 27.02.2017, which was returned unpaid on 03.03.2017. The notice of demand was issued on 28.03.2017, which was delivered on 30.03.2017. It appears that the petitioner had gone to Surat on business and returned back only in the month of July and thereafter, he filed the instant complaint belatedly. In the absence of any denial by the respondent, the Trial Court should not have lightly considered the reason mentioned by the petitioner for condonation of delay. 6. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15462 CRL.P No. 1701 of 2019 ORDER (i) This petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in PCR No.9584/2017 and the order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.R.P.No.674/2018 are set aside. (iii) The application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay is allowed. (iv) The Trial Court is directed to consider the private complaint in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35