Dismissed¶68

Mr.Santosh Sidha v. Ms.Rohini Iyengar

Cr.P.C S.482 / NI Act S.138 – Quash petition and challenge to rejection of S.311 Cr.P.C application

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025CRL.P/10235/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (M.I.Arun, J., 15-10-2025), CRL.P No. 10235/2021 c/w CRL.P No. 2914/2023 (S.482 Cr.P.C re S.138 NI Act, C.C.No.5730/2019): burden of proving timely presentation and dishonour of cheque lies on complainant; trial Court's rejection of S.311 Cr.P.C application to summon bank manager upheld; both petitions dismissed. NC: 2025:KHC:41003.

What did the court decide?

The onus of proving that the cheque was presented to the bank within the time stipulated, that it was dishonoured, that it was issued towards a legally dischargeable debt, that notice was issued within the stipulated time and that the complaint was filed within time, lies on the complainant (respondent); it is for her to prove her case. ¶58

Mr.Santosh Sidha Vs Ms.Rohini Iyengar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.5730/2019 under Section 138 NI Act ought to be quashed/dismissed in limine on the ground that the documents do not prima facie show that the cheque was deposited in the bank within the time stipulated. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

¶58

Ratio / Principle

If the complainant fails to establish her case in accordance with law, any doubt arising in the mind of the Court will have to enure to the benefit of the accused (petitioner).

¶58

Key takeaways

The complaint contained a specific averment that the cheque was deposited in accordance with law within the time stipulated, and the respondent deposed to the same in her sworn statement; accordingly, taking of cognizance and registration of C.C.No.5730/2019 was not erroneous.ratio¶53
The trial Court committed no error either in registering C.C.No.5730/2019 or in rejecting the petitioner's application (under Section 311 Cr.P.C).ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr.P.C S.482 / NI Act S.138 - Quash petition and challenge to rejection of S.311 Cr.P.C application - C.C.No.5730/2019, XII Addl. ACMM, Bengaluru - Accused contended the cheque was not presented within the stipulated time and the bank statement did not reflect dishonour, and sought summoning of the bank manager - Held: the onus of proving timely presentation, dishonour, issuance towards a legally dischargeable debt, timely notice and timely complaint lies on the complainant; if she fails, any doubt will enure to the benefit of the accused - The complaint contained a specific averment of deposit within the stipulated time, deposed to in the sworn statement; cognizance taken on the pleadings, cheque copy and bank memo was not erroneous - Mere registration of the case does not imply guilt - No error in registering C.C.No.5730/2019 or in rejecting the S.311 application - Both criminal petitions dismissed subject to observations (M.I.Arun, J.).

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10235 OF 2021

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2914 OF 2023

¶9

IN CRL.P No. 10235/2021

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR. SANTOSH SIDHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SAMSON R/AT FLAT NO.401, EAST AVE, PERIYAR NAGAR KUMARASWAMY COLONY KORATTUR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 080.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. AKHILESH B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BINU M, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MS.ROHINI IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O NOT KNOWN R/AT NO.4092, 4TH WING PRESTIGE SOUTH RIDGE APARTMENT BANASHANKARI 3RD PHASE BANGALORE - 560 085.

¶17

…PETITIONER

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. PARASHURAM A.L, ADVOCATE)

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023

¶21

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.5730/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL ACMM, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.

¶24

IN CRL.P NO. 2914/2023

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SRI. SANTHOSH SIDDHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SAMSON, R/AT FLAT NO.401, EAST AVE, PERIYAR NAGAR, KUMARASWAMY COLONY, KORATTUR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 080.

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI. AKHILESH B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BINU M, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

MS. ROHINI IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O NOT KNOWN, R/AT NO.4092, 4TH WING, PRESTIGE SOUTH RIDGE APARTMENT, BANASHANKARI, 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 085.

¶31

...RESPONDENT

¶32

(BY SRI. PARASHURAM A.L, ADVOCATE)

¶33

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2023, PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

IN C.C.NO.5730/2019 ON THE FILE OF XII A.S.C.J. AND A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶37

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The petitioner is challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.5730/2019 pending on the file of XII Additional and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.10235/2021 and the order dated 23.02.2023 passed in an application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C').

¶41

The respondent has contended that, in pursuance of a legally dischargeable debt, the petitioner issued a cheque in her favour and the same has been dishonoured. Hence, the proceedings have been initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act'), which has resulted in filing of C.C.No.5730/2019.

¶45

In the proceedings, the petitioner

¶46

herein/accused therein has taken up a contention that the cheque has not been presented to the bank within the time stipulated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. He has also taken up a contention that the bank statement does not reflect dishonour of the cheque as alleged by the respondent. Hence, he has made an application under Section 311 of Cr.PC, requesting the summoning of the bank manager for his examination to prove whether the cheque was presented to the bank within the time stipulated in accordance with law or not and whether the same has been dishonoured or not. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court.

¶47

The case of the petitioner is that when the documents do not prima facie show that the cheque has been deposited in the bank within the time stipulated as contemplated under law, the trial Court ought not to have

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

entertained C.C.No.5730/2019 and should have dismissed the same in limine. It is further contended that, even otherwise, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.PC because there is no clarity as to when the cheque was deposited before the bank and whether it was ever dishonoured and only the bank manager can speak as to it.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶52

justifies the order passed by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of both petitions.

¶53

It is seen from the complaint that there is a

¶54

specific averment that the cheque has been deposited in accordance with law within the time stipulated and in the sworn statement also the respondent herein has deposed the same. Based on the pleadings and also copies of the cheque and the memo issued by the bank, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence alleged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and has registered C.C.No.5730/2019 against the petitioner herein.

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The onus of proving that the cheque was

¶58

presented to the bank within the time stipulated in accordance with law, that the same has been dishonoured, that the cheque was issued by the petitioner herein towards a legally dischargeable debt, that the notice was issued within the time stipulated and that the complaint was also filed within the time as contemplated in law is on the respondent herein. It is for the respondent to prove her case. If she fails to establish the same in accordance with law, any doubt arising in the mind of the Court will have to enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein. Under the said circumstances, in my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in registering C.C.No.5730/2019 and also rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein.

¶59

Mere registration of C.C.No.5730/2019 does not imply that the petitioner herein is guilty of the offence alleged. The respondent, who is a complainant before the

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023

¶61

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

trial Court is required to prove her case in accordance with

¶64

law as observed herein above.

¶65