Sri. Arya Lohith Reddy Vs M/S. Sbms Concrete Pvt. Ltd.

SMT. VIJAYA. S. A W/O. LATE M. B. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 28, 4TH FLOOR, BHOOMI PARADISE, BEML MAIN ROAD, HAL 3RD STAGE, (OPPO. JAI DURGA MAA TEMPLE), NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶13

(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNA M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.V. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

M/S. SBMS CONCRETE PVT. LTD., COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 173/1, MUTTANALLURU CROSS, DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41833 CRL.P No. 12596 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶20

SRI. B. LAKSHMAIAH RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 121, 12TH FLOOR, SNN RAJ ETTERNIA APARTMENT, SILVER COUNTRY ROAD, HARALUR, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEVENDRA GOWDA R.R, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 IN C.C.NO.11994/2022 (PCR NO.4595/2022) ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED HONBLE XIV ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXXIX A.C.M.M COURT (SCCH-10) AT BENGALURU INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:41833 CRL.P No. 12596 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners and the respondents had several transactions, wherein the respondents were supplying ready mix concrete to the business run by the petitioners. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioners could not repay the amount due to them and hence offered to sell the sites in lieu of consideration. The same was accepted by the respondents and the respondents also paid additional consideration and agreements have been executed in favour of the respondents in this regard by the petitioners. However, for various reasons best known to the petitioners, they were not in a position to execute the necessary sale deeds conveying valid title in respect of the said sites in favour of the respondents herein. Hence, the petitioners agreed to repay the consideration amount and in partial discharge of a legally enforceable debt, the petitioners are said to have issued four cheques each for a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Only) drawn on State Bank of India,

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41833 CRL.P No. 12596 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

New Tippasandra Branch, Bengaluru with the first cheque bearing No.423361 dated 17.05.2022; The second cheque bearing No.423362 dated 27.05.2022; The third cheque bearing No.423363 dated 02.06.2022 and the last cheque bearing No.423364 dated 22.05.2022. The said cheques have been presented for encashment by the respondents but the same have been dishonoured for the reason 'Payment Stopped by Drawer'. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents have filed a private complaint which has presently resulted in C.C.No.11994/2022, pending on the file of XIV Addl.Small Causes Judge and XXXIX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (SCCH-10), Bangalore.

¶34

When the case was posted for crossexamination of the respondents (complainant's witnesses before the trial Court), the petitioners herein preferred an application under Section 311 of Cr.PC for recall of certain witnesses. The same was disallowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred Criminal Petition No.11232/2023. The said petition was filed on

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41833 CRL.P No. 12596 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

limited grounds praying for permission to cross-examine the witnesses. The same has been allowed and the following order was passed:

¶39

"(i) The petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) The impugned order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the XIV Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIX ACMM Court (SCCH-10), Bangalore, in C.C.No. 11994/2022 is hereby quashed and the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶41

(iii) The petitioners are permitted to crossexamine P.W.1 on the day they are summoned, and if the petitioners do not cross-examine P.W.1 without showing any sufficient cause, the learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law.

¶42

(iv) This order is subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.W.1."

¶43

It is to be noted that the petitioners did not challenge the initiation of the criminal proceedings against them under the Provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Petition No.11232/2023.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41833 CRL.P No. 12596 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The present petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.11994/2022, pending on the file of XIV Addl.Small Causes Judge and XXXIX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (SCCH-10), Bangalore.

¶47

Though several grounds are taken by the petitioners in the criminal petition, during the course of the arguments, the petitioners relied mainly on two grounds:

¶48

i) None of the cheques have been signed by

¶49

petitioner No.2 and the cheques were issued from

¶50

a joint account held by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and

¶51

it is not issued on behalf of any company.

¶52

ii) The legal notice issued by the respondents

¶53

for dishonour of cheques is time-barred insofar as it relates to the first cheque bearing No.'423361' and the complaint is not maintainable in respect of the said cheque.

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:41833 CRL.P No. 12596 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶58

if the above two grounds are considered and appropriate orders are passed, they would be satisfied with the same and in respect of other contentions, and they would urge the same before the trial Court.

¶59

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the cheques are issued on an account held jointly by both the petitioners, but has been signed only by petitioner No.1 and also admits that the notice in respect of the first cheque dated 17.05.2022 is delayed beyond the time specified under the Provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶60

Under the circumstances, since the cheques have been issued only by petitioner No.1, in a joint account held by both petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and petitioner No.2 has not signed the same, the respondents are having

¶61

a liberty to enforce the alleged liability against petitioner No.2 through a civil dispute, but insofar as it relates to dishonour of the cheque they cannot maintain a complaint

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41833 CRL.P No. 12596 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

against petitioner No.2. However, admittedly, as the cheques have been issued by petitioner No.1, a complaint can be maintained under the Negotiable Instruments Act against petitioner No.1 and it is for the complainant to prove their case against the petitioners if they want a conviction/compensation under the Provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, insofar as it relates to the first cheque dated 17.05.2022 bearing No.'423361', admittedly the notice which has been issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being time-barred,

¶65

the same is not maintainable. Hence, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The Criminal Petition is hereby disposed of.

¶68

ii. The proceedings against petitioner No.2 in C.C.No.11994/2022 pending on the file of XIV Addl.Small Causes Judge and XXXIX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (SCCH10), Bangalore is hereby quashed.

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41833 CRL.P No. 12596 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

iii. The proceedings in C.C.No.11994/2022 insofar as it relates to Cheque No.'423361' dated 17.05.2022 issued for a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Only) drawn on State Bank of India, New Thippasandra Branch, Bengaluru stands quashed.

¶72

iv. The proceedings against petitioner No.1 in C.C.No.11994/2022 pending on the file of XIV Addl.Small Causes Judge and XXXIX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (SCCH10), Bangalore in respect of the other cheques, shall continue in accordance with law.

¶73

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶74

CH

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri. Arya Lohith Reddy v. M/S. Sbms Concrete Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Arya Lohith Reddy v. M/S. Sbms Concrete Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekar Havanje Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Tamashree Deb Vs Mrs. Saraswathi

Athikulla Sharif Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Bestin Roay Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Rehaman @ Abdul Rahiman Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt. Shakunthala Vs State of Karnataka