High Court of Karnataka allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. Court held that taking cognizance was proper as petitioner must establish loss of cheque and other defences at trial.
Criminal petition to quash the order of cognizance in CC No. 1945/2015 was dismissed. Liberty reserved to petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1840 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SHRI. C. RAMANNA, S/O SHRI. CHOWDE GOWDA, AGE 51 YEARS, RESIDENT AT 7TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA, MANDYA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G. S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHRI. G. R. VINAY, S/O SHRI. RAJE GOWDA, AGE 34 YEARS, 5TH CROSS, LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 5.12.2015 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1945/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MADDUR AND ALSO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1945/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MADDUR.
NC: 2023:KHC:39584 CRL.P No. 1840 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the prosecution initiated against him in CC.No.1945/2015 pending trial before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
was marked as Ex.P1 was lost by the petitioner on 28.12.2006 at Mallaiahnadoddi on Bangalore Mysore road. In that regard, he had lodged a complaint before the Mandya rural police station on 12.01.2007 and intimated the Bank about the loss of the cheque. The revision Court, in terms of its order dated 04.11.2016, held that the trial Court, after perusing the sworn statement of the respondent and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 that were marked, as satisfied that there was a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner. It held that the contentions urged by the petitioner had to be proved at the trial and not by challenging the order taking cognizance. The revision Court therefore dismissed the revision petition in terms of the order dated 04.11.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:39584 CRL.P No. 1840 of 2017
was not sufficient. He contended that a reply issued by the petitioner also had to be taken into consideration at the time of taking cognizance.
and not certainly by challenging the order taking cognizance. It is now well settled that an order taking cognizance is the starting point of the prosecution and mere taking cognizance does not result in conviction of the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to establish his innocence at the trial by producing acceptable evidence. The trial Court was therefore right in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and the revision Court was also equally right in upholding the order taking cognizance. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to establish his defence before the trial Court in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
CT: BHK
PK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the requirement under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was complied with to justify taking cognizance of the offence.
Whether the petitioner must establish the loss of the cheque at the trial or by challenging the order taking cognizance.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C. RAMANNA
G. R. VINAY
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
