(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVIGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) v. BENGALURU-560001

1. SRI RAMALINGAIAH S/O LATE YELLEGOWDA, AGED 81 YEARS, SENIOR CONGRESS PARTY WORKER RESIDING AT FARM HOUSE KANNASANDRA VILLAGE, H. MOGENAHALLI POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 125. (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVIGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

SRI H.A. IQBAL HUSSAIN MELMBER OF LEGISLATURE COUNCIL RAMANAGARA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.90, 1ST CROSS 5TH MAIN, LIC COLONY JAYANAGARA 3RD BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011.

THE STATE BY RAMANAGAR TOWN POLICE STATION, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22642 WP No. 16338 of 2024 HC-KAR REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE FOR R.1; R.2: DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.03.2025.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS DATED

02.11.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT RAMANAGARA IN C.C. NO.212/2018, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

1. This petition by the complainant is directed against the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 passed in C.C.No.212/2018 whereby court noted the absence of petitioner/complainant and proceeded to acquit respondent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22642 WP No. 16338 of 2024 HC-KAR no.1/accused account non-appearance petitioner/complainant.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/complainant instituted proceedings C.C.No.212/2018 against respondent No.1/accused for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance in the matter before the trial court and has contested the proceedings which were posted before the trial court on 02.11.2022 on which date, a memo is filed duly signed by the learned counsel for the complainant in the absence of the petitioner/complainant seeking dismissal of the complaint, as a result of which, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order. In this context, learned counsel petitioner/complainant as well as the petitioner who is present in person jointly submit that they had not given instructions to the counsel for the complainant in the trial court to file such a memo which was filed without their instructions or knowledge and as such - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22642 WP No. 16338 of 2024 HC-KAR the impugned order passed by the trial court based on the aforesaid memo seeking dismissal of the complaint may be set aside and the matter may remitted back to the trial court by restoring the proceedings so as to enable the petitioner to prosecute the same in accordance with law. Submission is placed on record.

Though the memo is said to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant before the trial court, in view of the specific/categorical submission made by the petitioner and his counsel before this Court that they had not given any instructions to the counsel for the complainant in the trial court to withdraw the complaint or seek dismissal of the same as not pressed, in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute the proceedings, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the proceedings to the file of the trial court and direct the trial court to proceed further in accordance with law.