Dismissed¶33

Asif Tambuli v. K S Nagaraj

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2025CRL.P/10597/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (S.R. Krishna Kumar J., 08-01-2025) dismisses CRL.P 10597/2024 under S.482 Cr.P.C./Art.226 seeking quashing of S.138 NI Act prosecution (CC No.331/2020, PCR No.70/2020, Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Belur, Hassan) over a cheque dispute; court finds disputed questions of law and fact requiring adjudication at trial; contentions on maintainability (no legally enforceable debt), non-service of statutory notice and absence of proof of guilt kept open.

What did the court decide?

There are several contentious issues and disputed questions of law and fact between the parties, who have made allegations and counter-allegations, and these must be adjudicated during the course of trial after both parties are given an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. ¶28

Asif Tambuli Vs K S Nagaraj — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint against the petitioner is maintainable given the alleged absence of a debt or legally enforceable debt capable of being enforced by the respondent against the petitioner. +3 more

¶22

Ratio / Principle

¶28

Key takeaways

In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the present case does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶32
There is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed; however, all rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on them.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 10597 of 2024) under S.482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.331/2020 (PCR No.70/2020) pending before the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur, Dist. Hassan, seeking quashing of proceedings instituted by the respondent-complainant for offences punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner contended that (i) there was no debt/legally enforceable debt making the complaint unmaintainable, (ii) the statutory notice issued prior to the complaint was not served on him, and (iii) the respondent had placed no material establishing his guilt. Held: several contentious issues and disputed questions of law and fact arise between the parties and must be adjudicated at trial after both sides adduce oral and documentary evidence; consequently the case does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under S.482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed; all rival contentions on all aspects kept open, no opinion expressed. (S.R. Krishna Kumar J.; oral order dated 08-01-2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:909 CRL.P No. 10597 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10597 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ASIF TAMBULI S/O SIRAJ TAMBULI AGED 42 YEARS PROPRIETOR MAYUR CHURUMURI PRODUCT KURNAL CHOWK, DATTB NAGAR, JAMAVADI, SANGLI - 416410 MAHARASHTRA.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

K S NAGARAJ S/O SAGANE GOWDA AGED 51 YEARS PROPRIETOR, SRI VENKATESHWARA TRADERS GENDEHALLI ROAD BELUR TALUK HASSAN - 573 115,.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHINNAPPA GOWDA D G., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CASE BEARING CC NO.331/2020 (P C R NO.70/2020) PENDING, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AN JMFC BELUR. DIST HASSAN, SEEDING PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT.

¶14

(BY SRI. CHINNAPPA GOWDA D G., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:909 CRL.P No. 10597 of 2024

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This petition by the accused in C.C.No.331/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur, seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings instituted by the respondent – complainant for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (for short, ‘the N.I.Act’) and for other reliefs.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶22

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid proceedings instituted by the respondent – complainant against the petitioner – accused in relation to the cheque in question for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, the petitioner after having entered appearance before the Trial Court and contesting the proceedings by obtaining bail has filed the present petition interalia contending that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable since there was no debt / legally enforceable debt which was capable of being enforced by the respondent against the petitioner. It is also contended that the statutory notice said to have been issued prior

¶23

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:909 CRL.P No. 10597 of 2024

¶25

to filing the complaint by the respondent was not served upon the petitioner and on this ground also, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed. It is further contended that the respondent had not placed any material to establish that the petitioner was guilty of the offences alleged against him and as such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶26

Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondent

¶27

that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

A perusal of the material on record including the rival contentions will indicate that there are several contentious issues and disputed questions of law and fact that arise for consideration between the parties, who have made allegations and counter allegations against each other in relation to the subject matter of dispute in the impugned proceedings and the same would necessarily have to be adjudicated upon during the course of trial after providing both parties an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. In fact,

¶29

the various contentions based on facts urged by the petitioner – accused have been seriously disputed by the respondent –

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:909 CRL.P No. 10597 of 2024

¶32

complainant and consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the view that the present case does not warrant exercise of my jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed . However, all rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶34

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶35

ASN / SV

¶36

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Asif Tambuli v. K S Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Tambuli v. K S Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Bindiganavile Rangarajan Vasudha Vs M/S K G Denim Limited

Diwakar M Vs Megha P

Samarjit Kaur Vs M/S Tvs Credit Services Ltd.

Sri. Sachin Patil Vs the State by Basavanagudi Police Station

Aravinda S Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatappa Vs the State of Karnataka