1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.740 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

C.H.Devraj,
Late C.C.Hanumantha Rao,
Aged about 73 years,
No.4, Benson Town,
Benson Road,
Bangalore – 560 046.
…PETITIONER

(By Shri. Nitin .R, Advocate for Shri. Sunil Dutt Yadav.S,
Advocate)

AND:

Dr. Neelakanteswara Swamy,

Director,
Sanford School of Nursing
And Paramedical Sciences,
Katha No.134, Nagarabhavi,
2nd Stage, Apoorva Layout,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore – 560 010. …RESPONDENT
 2

(notice to respondent is dispensed with)

*****

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section

397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by
the advocate for the petitioner praying to set aside the order
dated 17.8.2013 in PCR.No.7967/2010 before the XV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court

made the following:

ORDER

There is a delay of 309 days in filing the petition.

2. The present revision petition is preferred against the

dismissal of a complaint in respect of an offence punishable

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’, for brevity). It

transpires that the court below had taken cognizance and had

directed issuance of summons. However, since process was not

paid and in spite of repeated adjournments there was non-

compliance, the complaint was dismissed for default.

 3

3. It is stated that the petitioner remained unaware of the

same, as his counsel had retired from active practice and did not

keep him informed of the progress of the case. It is only after

more than 300 days after the order was passed, that the

petitioner woke up to the reality, as it is claimed that he was an

aged person and did not have the assistance of anybody else to

follow through and it is by chance that he has learnt of the

dismissal and therefore, the present petition.

In the light of the fact that the respondent was never put

on notice of the present case, notice to the respondent is

dispensed with.

For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned.

Though no fault can be found with the court below in

dismissing the complaint for default, the reason assigned by the

petitioner that his counsel had retired from active practice and

the petitioner was unaware of the same, is a plausible reason.

Therefore, the petition is allowed. The complaint is restored to

file. The petitioner shall pay the process fee at the earliest on
 4

resumption of the proceedings before the Lower Court, failing

which the law shall take its course.

The petitioner shall appear before the court below

without any further notice, on 27.10.2014.

Sd/-
JUDGE

KS