IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201578/2019

Between:

Lakshman S/o Bhimappa Kishori
Aged about 43 years
Occ: Service
R/o KPTCL, Budni PD
Mahalingpur Tq. Mudhol
Dist. Bagalkot-586101
… Petitioner

(By Sri Sanjeevkumar C. Patil, Advocate)

And:

Smt. Banashankari
W/o Lakshman Kishori
Aged about 37 years
Occ: Household
R/o Karikol
Tq. and Dist. Vijayapur-586101
… Respondent

(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, Advocate)

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 02.11.2019
Crl.P.No.201578/2019
2

passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Vijayapura, in Crl.R.P.No.106/2018 and to restore the
order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge JMFC Vijayapura in CC No.144/2014.

This petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court made the following:

ORDER

In this criminal petition, the petitioner who was

accused no.1 before the trial Court, has challenged

the order of restoration of the complaint filed against

him by the present respondent in the trial Court

alleging the offences punishable under sections 323,

354, 504, 506, 498A read with section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as ‘IPC’).

2. The summary of the case of the

complainant in the trial Court is that the complainant

filed a private complaint in P.C.No.8/2013 before the

III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at

Vijayapur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘trial
Crl.P.No.201578/2019
3

Court’) against the present accused and five others for

the offences punishable under sections 323, 354, 504,

506, 498A read with section 34 of IPC. After

recording the sworn statement of the complainant and

other witnesses, the trial Court ordered for issuance of

summons against accused nos.1 and 2 only by taking

cognizance of the offences and the complaint was

rejected against accused nos.3 to 6.

Accused nos.1 and 2, though initially challenged

the said order of issuance of summons before the

learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur in

C.R.P.No.251/2014 and C.R.P. No.252/2014 and could

able to succeed in getting the order in their favour on

30.12.2015, resulting in the quashing of the entire

complaint, however, the complainant approaching this

Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.200026/2016

was able to get an order in her favour on 03.06.2016

setting aside the order of the learned I-Additional
Crl.P.No.201578/2019
4

Sessions Judge, Vijayapur in C.R.P.No.251/2014 and

C.R.P. No.252/2014 dated 30.12.2015. Consequently,

complaint was restored on the file of the trial Court.

However, accused nos.1 and 2 had already appeared

before the trial Court and were enlarged on bail. The

matter was posted for evidence before charge. It

appears that several adjournments of the proceeding

took place, however, on 19.03.2018 observing that

the complainant had remained absent and did not lead

evidence before charge, the trial Court dismissed the

complaint for non-prosecution.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the

complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition

No.106/2018 under section 397 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

‘Cr.P.C.’) against accused nos.1 and 2 in the Court of

the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Vijayapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘revisional
Crl.P.No.201578/2019
5

Court’). The said Court, after hearing both side, by its

order dated 02.11.2019 allowed the revision petition

and set aside the order of the trial Court dated

19.03.2018 and restored the complaint in its original

stage. Both parties were directed to appear before

the trial Court on 23.12.2019 without anticipating any

summons from the trial Court. Challenging the said

order, accused no.1 alone has filed this petition under

section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the

order of revisional Court dated 02.11.2019 and

restoring the order of the trial Court dated

19.03.2018.

4. Respondent is being represented by her

counsel.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his

argument, submitted that the trial Court has observed

that the complainant had taken several adjournments
Crl.P.No.201578/2019
6

in the matter, as such, it has rightly dismissed the

complaint for non-prosecution on 19.03.2018. The

revisional Court, without noticing that the trial Court

had given sufficient opportunity to the complainant,

was not justified in allowing the revision petition and

setting aside the order of dismissal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent,

in his argument, submitted that the revisional Court

has rightly observed that in a matter relating to

administration of criminal justice, the matter cannot

be dismissed for default, but the same is to be

decided on merits. He also submitted that the

revisional Court noticed that on several occasions

accused also had taken several adjournments in the

matter. As such, delay, if any, was not by the sole

contribution from the complainant’s side.

Crl.P.No.201578/2019
7

6. From a perusal of the certified copy of the

order sheet of the trial Court which is placed before

this Court along with the memorandum of petition, it

is seen that apart from the complainant, even the

accused also had remained absent on several dates of

hearing in the trial Court and caused adjournments in

the matter. In the process, the accused nos.1 and 2

had also filed an application seeking permanent

exemption from their appearance on the dates of

hearing before the trial Court and the disposal of the

said application had also taken considerable time. As

such, the alleged delay in the trial Court cannot be

solely fastened upon the complainant but there is

some contribution from the accused side also.

However, the trial Court, in its order dated

19.03.2018, without seeing the reason for the

absence of the complainant, has simply proceeded to

dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution which has
Crl.P.No.201578/2019
8

been rightly set aside by the revisional Court in Crl.RP.

No.106/2018, after relying upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan Lal Kapoor vs. Rajiv

Thapar and others in Criminal Appeal No.1150/2007

decided on 31.08.2007. In the said case, the Hon’ble

Apex Court was pleased to hold that the matters

relating to administration of criminal justice cannot be

dismissed for default and it must be decided on

merits. In the instant case, admittedly, the matter

relates to the administration of criminal justice and

the alleged delay since being attributable to both side,

the revisional Court has rightly set aside the order of

dismissal of the complaint for default and has restored

the complaint in its original stage.

7. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in

the said order. However, considering the age of the

complaint in the trial Court, I am of the view that the

trial Court, if requested for the speedy disposal of the
Crl.P.No.201578/2019
9

matter, would help in serving the ends of justice in the

circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is dismissed. Both side

parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on

17.02.2020 at 11.00 a.m. without anticipating

summons or notice from the trial Court and to

co-operate in speedy disposal of the matter by the

trial Court without seeking unnecessary

adjournments. The early disposal of the matter by the

trial Court is highly appreciated.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the

trial Court immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE
swk