JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is listed for Admission. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.13930/2014 dated 24.08.2016 whereby, the trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 3. At this point, it is relevant to refer to the order sheet maintained by the trial Court. The trial Court in its order dated 24.08.2016, recorded a finding that, the complainant is irregular in appearing before the Court. PW.1 has not tendered for crossexamination in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. It appears that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Since, PW.1 has not tendered for crossexamination, the evidence of PW.1 is discarded and the complaint is dismissed. Consequently, the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The bail bond stands cancelled. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order and also the averments made in the complaint initiated by the complainant in C.C.No.13930/2014 which arose in PCR No.27104/2011. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused, who is the proprietor of M/s.N.N.ISPAT approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs on 27.08.2010 for the purpose of his business at Bangalore City. He executed an on Demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipt in favour of the complainant, who initiated the proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonour of cheque. When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment through her banker namely Canara Bank, Madhavanagar Branch, Bangalore, the said cheque was dishonoured on 17.10.2011 for the reason ‘Account Closed’ by the accused banker. Subsequent to receipt of endorsement issued by the Bank, the complainant, who followed the requisite conditions as contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act issued notice to the accused through RPAD. Despite the notice has been duly served on the accused, he did not properly response to the contents of the notice relating to the cheque amount of Rs.16 lakhs. Subsequently, the complainant initiated proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 6. Despite the notice has been duly served on the accused, he did not properly response to the contents of the notice relating to the cheque amount of Rs.16 lakhs. Subsequently, the complainant initiated proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, there was a negotiation of settlement by the accused. Considering the said aspect, the trial Court posted the matter for settlement or for cross of PW.1. In spite of the same, PW.1 did not appear before the Court of law and stood for crossexamination. In the meanwhile, the complaint came to be dismissed and the same has been reflected in an order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.13930/2014 dated 24.08.2016 and acquitted the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has produced certain documents in order to establish her case. Therefore, opportunity ought to be given to the appellant/complainant to establish her case, if not, certainly it would cause miscarriage of justice to the complainant. These are all the contentions that have taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and seeks to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Court of 21st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.13930/2014 dated 24.08.2016. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent counter to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute regarding proceedings initiated by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The initiation of the proceedings by the complainant is only after Bank issuing an endorsement stating that ‘Account Closed’ and after following the requisite conditions as contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act relating to cheque bounce. Merely because, the conditions followed and proceedings initiated, it cannot be said that allegations made against the accused relating to cheque bounce is gospel truth. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the case before the trial Court, there was a negotiation between the accused and the complainant and that itself is not a ground to seek for allowing the appeal. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act does not require any intervention by this Court. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act does not require any intervention by this Court. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having regard to the contentions addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, it is relevant to refer to the complaint averments wherein, it is stated that the complainant, who is the proprietor of M/s. Sewara Aashish Kumar known the accused since last two years and the accused has created confidence. Thereafter, the accused approached the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs. The same has been reflected in paragraph No.4 of the complaint initiated by the complainant against the accused. The accused, who received the cheque for a sum of Rs.16 lakhs assured the complainant to present the cheque for encashment. Accordingly, the said cheque has been presented by the complainant through her bank namely Canara Bank, Madhavanagar Brach at Bangalore. But the said cheque was dishonourned with an endorsement issued by the Bank that ‘Account Closed’. Subsequent to receipt of an endorsement issued by the bank, the complainant followed the requisite conditions as contemplated under Section 138 of NI Act and issued notice to the accused through RPAD. The said notice has been duly served upon the accused. Despite the same, he did not comply with the stipulated contents in the notice issued by the complainant. Hence, the complainant initiated the proceedings against the accused for the aforesaid office. 9. During the pendency of the proceedings, there was a negotiation between the complainant and the accused. Because of this reason, PW.1 did not tendered for crossexamination believing that the dispute would be resolved. However, the trial Court on 24.08.2016 dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is relevant to state that Doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem applies to the case on hand. PW.1 has not tendered crossexamination and that itself is not a ground for the accused to seek dismissal of the complaint initiated by the complainant against him that too for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. PW.1 has not tendered crossexamination and that itself is not a ground for the accused to seek dismissal of the complaint initiated by the complainant against him that too for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, keeping in view all the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, I am of the opinion that there are substances in the contention to intervention with the impugned order. 10. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings as opined, the order passed by the Courts below suffers from infirmity for dismissal of the complaint and acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal preferred by the appellant is hereby allowed. (ii) The order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.13930/2014 dated 24.08.2016 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the aforesaid case is restored on the file of the trial Court. Since, the matter is of the year 2014, the appellant/complainant be present before the Court and to fix a particular date by the trial Court to proceed with the case i.e., from the stage of crossexamination of PW.1 in accordance with law. (iii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case by giving an opportunity to both the complaint and the accused by adducing their evidence and also to produce the documents, if any. However, the trial Court shall dispose of the case on merit within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The registry of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial Court for compliance.