Sri. Umesh. H Vs Sri. Raghavendra. a

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19008 CRL.P No. 5173 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5173 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. UMESH H., S/O LATE. HEMANNA, AGED 65 YEARS, R/A. NO.2, HURALICHIKANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 090

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. T. MANJUNATH, FOR SMT. DURGA DEVI M., ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. S/O SRI. ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. 18, 8^TH A CROSS, M.T. STREET, VASANTHNAGAR,

¶14

BENGALURU – 560 052

¶15

SRI. MADHUSUDHAN N. S/O SRI. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A NO.U-15/26, 8^TH CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION, VYALIKAVAL, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. LOKESH A., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ISSUE

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:19008 CRL.P No. 5173 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SUMMONS DATED 01.02.2022 IN C.C NO.2150/2022 (PCR NO.5142/2021) PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, SCCH:24, BENGALURU EARLIER IV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, SCCH:6 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶27

“i) Call for the records.

¶28

ii) Set aside the order of issue of summons dated 01.02.2022 in C.C.No.2150/2022 (PCR No.5142/2021) pending on the file of XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACJM, SCCH:24, Bengaluru earlier IV Additional Small Causes Judge and ACJM, SCCH:6 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems to fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶29

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

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19008 CRL.P No. 5173 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged

¶33

in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2150/2022 in order to point out that apart from respondent No.1-A.Raghavendra, who is the complainant, being the payee in whose favour the alleged cheque is said to have been issued by the petitioner –accused, the impugned proceedings including respondent No.2-N.Madhusudhan, who is not one of the payees or holders of the cheque in question, consequently, impugned proceedings insofar as respondent No.2 is concerned is without jurisdiction or authority of law and contrary to the provisions contained under Sections 138 to 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since there was joint and several liability of the petitioner towards both the respondents, the Trial Court was fully justified in taking cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioner qua both the respondents and there is no merit in the petition and liable to be dismissed.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19008 CRL.P No. 5173 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

A perusal of the material on record, in particular,

¶38

cheque in question will indicate that the same is alleged to have been issued by the petitioner-accused only in favour of respondent No.1 – A.Raghavendra, who is arraigned as complainant No.1. It is also significant to note that respondent No.2-Madhusudhan N., is neither the payee nor holder of the cheque in question and continuation of the proceedings insofar as the petitioner against respondent No.2 does not arise and the same is contrary to the provisions contained in Sections 138 to 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is however to be made clear that the respondent No.1-complainant No.1 would be entitled to proceed against the petitioner-accused, before the Trial Court, who is to be directed to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law.

¶39