Mr Siddaramaiah Vs Smt Indiramma — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr Siddaramaiah Vs Smt Indiramma — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to raise all the grounds previously urged before the Trial Court; all contentions remain open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the six subject cheques were issued in relation to different transactions, such that the common complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not maintainable. +1 more

Court's answer

Whether the subject cheques were issued in relation to the different transactions is a matter that requires consideration after a full-fledged trial.

Ratio / Principle

At this stage, in the absence of any specific averment in the complaint, the issue whether the cheques related to different transactions cannot be addressed.

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds previously urged before the Trial Court; all contentions remain open.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 2925 of 2025 (filed under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS) by Siddaramaiah sought setting aside of (i) the Trial Court order dated 23.02.2024 in C.C.No.3695/2023 (IV Addl. Small Cause Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru) rejecting his application under Section 219 Cr.P.C. contending that six cheques issued in favour of the complainant, Smt. Indiramma, related to different transactions so the common complaint for offences under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not maintainable, and (ii) the Sessions Court order dated 08.01.2025 in Crl.RP No.143/2024 dismissing his revision. High Court of Karnataka (Hemant Chandangoudar, J., 04.03.2025) held that whether the subject cheques were issued in relation to different transactions requires consideration after a full-fledged trial and cannot be addressed at this stage in the absence of any specific averment in the complaint; the petition was disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to raise all grounds previously urged before the Trial Court, all contentions remaining open.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10406 CRL.P No. 2925 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2925 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

MR. SIDDARAMAIAH S/O VENKAT RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AT EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE, MODEL HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGELURU-10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH S SURYAVANSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. INDIRAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA S. AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, 1^ST CROSS, GURUKULA LAYOUT, NEAR DAKSHINAMURTHY TEMPLE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, CHANNENAHALLI, BENGALURU-562 130.

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.3695/2023 DATED 23.02.2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. SMAL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM BENGALURU AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LRD. LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, IN CRL.RP NO.143/2024 VIDE

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10406 CRL.P No. 2925 of 2025

ORDER DATED 08.01.2025 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER

The petitioner filed an application under Section 219 of the Cr.P.C., stating that the six cheques allegedly issued in favor of the complainant relate to different transactions, therefore, the common complaint was not maintainable. The application was rejected, and a revision petition was filed before the Sessions Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard, and the material on record was perused.

Whether the subject cheques were issued in relation to the different transactions is a matter that requires consideration after a full-fledged trial; at this stage, in the absence of any specific averment in the complaint, this issue cannot be addressed.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, reserving the liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds previously urged before the Trial Court. All contentions remain open.

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

RKA; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75