Dismissed¶35

Sri. Ravikumar v. Smt. Mahima

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2025CRL.P/11495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Post-conviction maintainability of Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS quashing petition; Section 138 NI Act conviction in C.C.No.22982/2021 by XII ACMM Bangalore; appeal Crl.A. No.1501/2025 pending before Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; petitioner's contention that cheque was never issued and he holds no drawee-bank account; held misconceived, dismissed with liberty to pursue appellate remedies; NC: 2025:KHC:31169.

What did the court decide?

None; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue all permissible remedies in the pending appeal. ¶35

Sri. Ravikumar Vs Smt. Mahima — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue all permissible remedies in the pending appeal.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire/further proceedings in Criminal Appeal No.1501/2025 pending before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-63, Bengaluru, and the underlying conviction in C.C.No.22982/2021, could be quashed/set aside under Section 482 CrPC (filed under Section 528 BNSS). +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The petition is wholly misconceived: the petitioner has already been convicted in C.C.No.22982/2021 and has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal, which is pending.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Once a conviction order has been passed there are no pending proceedings in the trial case, and the question of quashing them under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) does not arise.

¶29

Key takeaways

After conviction, the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS stands considerably narrowed, and the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the merits of the matter in exercise of such jurisdiction.ratio¶33
Documents or other material which, according to the petitioner, would establish that no Section 138 offence is made out must be produced before the appellate court in accordance with law.ratio¶33
The judgment relied upon by the petitioner's counsel is distinguishable on facts and has no application to the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum J.) dismissed CRL.P No. 11495 of 2025, a petition under Section 482 CrPC (filed under Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crl.A. No.1501/2025 pending before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-63, Bengaluru, and setting aside of the conviction in C.C.No.22982/2021 (XII ACMM, Bangalore) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Held: once a conviction order has been passed there are no pending trial proceedings left to quash, the petitioner having already availed the statutory appeal; post-conviction the scope of interference under Section 482/Section 528 stands considerably narrowed and the Court cannot enquire into the merits; any material showing no Section 138 offence must be produced before the appellate court; the judgment relied on by the petitioner was distinguishable on facts. Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedies in the pending appeal.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:31169 CRL.P No. 11495 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11495 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O VENKATACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 12, BALAJI NIVAS, 8TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, S.B.M COLONY, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIPIN N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. MAHIMA W/O ANAND, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.61, 5TH A CROSS, 8TH MAIN, S.B.M COLONY, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶15

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ENTIRE/FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1501/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-63 AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE A).

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:31169 CRL.P No. 11495 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has tried to persuade this Court to quash the proceedings pending in Crl.A.No.1501/2024 pending on the file of Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and to set aside the conviction order passed by the learned XII ACMM, Bangalore, in C.C.No.22982/2021 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Perused the records.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31169 CRL.P No. 11495 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

petition is wholly misconceived . The records clearly disclose that the petitioner has already been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.C. No.22982/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Once such a conviction

¶29

order has been passed, the question of quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) does not arise, since there are no pending proceedings in the said case. The petitioner, having suffered a conviction, has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal, and the said appeal in Crl.A. No.1501/2025 is presently pending adjudication before the competent appellate court.

¶30

The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that the cheque in question was never issued by him and that he does not hold any account in the bank on which the cheque is purported to have been drawn. On this basis, it is contended that the essential ingredients of

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31169 CRL.P No. 11495 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not satisfied. However, a perusal of the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No.22982/2021 reveals that the petitioner neither contested the trial proceedings nor entered the witness box, and further, that no rebuttal evidence was adduced on his behalf. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is in possession of documents or other material which, according to him, would establish that no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out, such material must necessarily be produced before the appellate court in accordance with law. Once the conviction order has been passed, the scope of interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of the BNSS stands considerably narrowed, and this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the merits of the matter in exercise of such jurisdiction.

¶34