AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G Basavaraja, J
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant who is the complainant has filed the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The Trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and case came to be registered in C.C.No.7325/2021. On 19.08.2024, the trial Court has passed the following order:
"Complainant present.
Learned counsel for the complainant prays time to take steps. Sufficient time already granted. Inspite of repeated issuance of NBW, the complainant is not taking steps to secure the accused. In the last date of hearing on the request of complainant, it was ordered to Issue NBW by the hands of complainant which shall be executed through jurisdictional police. Even though the NBW is ready it is not collected and it shows that the complainant is reluctant to take steps. No PF is paid and praying for time to take steps. The case is pending from 2021. Hence, no grounds are made out, prayer rejected. In the result the case is dismissed for default."
Further, a perusal of the order dated 16.07.2024, it is clear that the complainant has paid PF. The trial Court has passed an order of re-issue NBW to the accused by hands of the complainant, which shall be executed through the jurisdictional police. When the Court has issued NBW to the accused, the same has to be executed through concerned police. In view of the Rule 8 of Chapter 3 of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, all processes shall be served or executed by the police, unless the Court which issues the process, otherwise directs. Even if the accused was issued with NBW by the Court, it has to be executed through concerned police. It is not possible to execute non-bailable warrant by the complainant. When the Court has issued NBW to the accused, it is the duty of the concerned police to receive the non-bailable warrant from the Court. The non-collection of the NBW by the complainant is not a genuine ground to dismiss the case. Though the complainant counsel sought time to take steps, the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the complainant, which is not sustainable under law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed;
ii) The order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the XI Addl. SCJ and ACMM at Bangalore City in C.C No.7325/2021 is set aside;
iii) The case in C.C No.7325/2021 on the file of XI Addl. SCJ and ACMM at Bangalore City shall be restored;
iv) The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law;
v) The complainant shall appear before the Trial Court on 18.11.2025 without seeking any further notice from the Trial Court.
vi) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for taking necessary action.