Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 465 (KAR)

Suma R v. S. C. Chandra Shekhar

2019-02-19

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : John Michael Cunha, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for respondent is absent. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2014 passed by the XXII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in CC NO.16272/12 whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act') for non-prosecution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on 18.8.2014, the complainant was present in Court, but, she being hard of hearing, could not present herself before Court as a result, the petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. The learned counsel submits that, immediately on the next day, an application was moved by the petitioner for recall of the said order and restoration of the case but, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application on the ground that the trial Court has no power to review the order. 4. The order sheet maintained by the Court below discloses that, complainant was present on 10.4.2014 and thereafter, on successive three dates, the complainant was absent. Hence, the complaint has been dismissed for non-prosecution. But, the order sheet dated 19.8.2014 reveals that, immediately on the next day, the complainant sought to recall the said order and in the said application it is stated that, she was present in the Court on 18.8.2014 and since she was hard of hearing, she could not appear before the Court when the case was called. These facts indicate that the complainant is interested in prosecution of the petition and is only on account of the above reason, the matter had gone unrepresented. 5. Having regard to the claim made by the petitioner who is a woman, in the interest of justice, an opportunity is required to be afforded to the petitioner to substantiate her case before the Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.8.2014 passed by the XXII Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore in CC No.16272/2012, is recalled. Complaint filed by the petitioner in CC No.16272/12 is restored to the file. Since the matter is pending since 2012, the complainant as well as respondent/accused are directed to appear before the trial Court on 05.03.2019 without any further notice. The petition is accordingly allowed.