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