Allowed¶38

R Rupesh Kumar v. M/S Golden Gate Properties Ltd.

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2025CRL.P/5646/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of S.138 NI Act prosecution against non-signatory, non-proprietor third accused; no cause of action against Accused No.3; cheque issued only by proprietor Mohammed Nawaz of proprietary concern; CRL.P No. 5646 of 2023; S.482 Cr.P.C.; 528 BNSS; C.C.No.3957/2023; PCR No.17309/2021; XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru; Golden Gate Properties Ltd.; Hazma Enterprises; Mohammed Nizam; R. Rupesh Kumar; Karnataka High Court; decision dated 27-01-2025; chamber order 07-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the entire proceedings and complaint in C.C.No.3957/2023 (arising out of PCR No.17309/2021) quashed in so far as the petitioner/Accused No.3 is concerned; liberty reserved to respondent No.2 to avail other remedies available in law against the petitioner. ¶38

R Rupesh Kumar Vs M/S Golden Gate Properties Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings and complaint in C.C.No.3957/2023, registered for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and pending before the XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, could be quashed in so far as the petitioner/Accused No.3 is concerned. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The Criminal Petition is allowed; the impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3957/2023 (arising out of PCR No.17309/2021) for offences punishable under Sections 138 and 148 of the N.I. Act, pending before the XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed in so far as the petitioner-Accused No.3 is concerned.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The cheque in question was issued only by Mr. Mohammed Nawaz, the proprietor of the proprietary concern M/s. Hazma Enterprises (Accused No.1); the petitioner (Accused No.3) is neither proprietor of that concern nor a signatory to the cheque, and did not issue any cheque on behalf of Mr. Mohammed Nawaz or the proprietary concern.

¶28

Key takeaways

As the entire allegations in the complaint are directed only against Accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of a cheque undisputedly not issued or executed by the petitioner-Accused No.3, the respondent-complainant cannot be said to have any cause of action to institute the present proceedings against him.ratio¶29
The petitioner-Accused No.3, having neither issued nor executed the cheque, cannot be arraigned or dragged into the present proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.ratio¶30
Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.2 to avail such other remedies as are available in law against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S.R. Krishna Kumar J.), CRL.P No. 5646 of 2023 under S.482 Cr.P.C. (also noted as 528 BNSS): sought quashing of C.C.No.3957/2023 (arising out of PCR No.17309/2021) under S.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, so far as the petitioner/Accused No.3 (R. Rupesh Kumar) was concerned; complainant M/s. Golden Gate Properties Ltd. had arrayed M/s. Hazma Enterprises (A1), its proprietor Mohammed Nizam (A2) and the petitioner (A3). Held: the cheque was admittedly issued only by Mr. Mohammed Nawaz, proprietor of A1; the petitioner was neither proprietor of A1 nor signatory to, or issuer of, the cheque, and the allegations targeted only A1 and A2; accordingly the complainant had no cause of action against A3 and he could not be arraigned under S.138 N.I. Act. Petition allowed; proceedings quashed qua A3, with liberty to the complainant to pursue other legal remedies. Order corrected vide chamber order dated 07.02.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:3653 CRL.P No. 5646 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5646 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R. RUPESH KUMAR, S/O RAMESH, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O NO. 31/1, SANNIDHI ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE 560013

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

M/S GOLDEN GATE PROPERTIES LTD., HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 820, 80 FEET ROAD, 8^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560095 REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SRINIVAS N.,

¶13

(BY SMT. BHARATHI M., FOR SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATES)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND COMPLIANT IN C.C.NO.3957/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:3653 CRL.P No. 5646 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶22

“WHEREFORE, for the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court may be please to quash the entire proceedings and complaint in C.C.No.3957/2023 registered for the offences u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending on the file of the Hon’ble XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in so far as the petitioner/accused No:3 is concerned, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶23

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

¶24

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent-complainant instituted the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3957/2023 on the file of XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against the petitioner-accused No.3 and accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the N.I. Act”). Accused No.1 is M/s. Hazma Enterprises, a proprietary concern represented by its sole proprietor, Mr.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:3653 CRL.P No. 5646 of 2023

¶27

Mohammed Nizam, who is also arrayed as accused No.2 by showing him as the proprietor of Hazma Enterprises in the cause title of the Private Complaint.

¶28

A perusal of the petition averments and the undisputed fact that the cheque has been issued only by Mr. Mohammed Nawaz, the proprietor of proprietary concern, M/s. Hazma Enterprises will clearly indicate that the petitioner herein is accused No.3, is neither proprietor nor is he a signatory to the cheque in question nor has he issued any cheque on behalf of Mr. Mohammed Nawaz or the proprietary concern, M/s. Hazma Enterprises.

¶29

Under these circumstances, the respondentcomplainant cannot said to have any cause of action to institute the present proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.3, especially when the entire allegations made in the complaint are directed only as against accused Nos.1 and 2 in relation to the cheque in question, which has undisputedly not been issued or executed by the petitioner-accused No.3, who cannot be arraigned

¶30

or dragged into the present proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is however stated that liberty will have to be reserved to

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:3653 CRL.P No. 5646 of 2023

¶33

take recourse to such other remedies as available in law as against the petitioner-accused No.3.

¶34

In the result, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The *Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶37

(ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3957/2023 (arising out of PCR No.17309/2021) for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 148 of the N.I. Act, pending before the XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in so far as the petitioner

¶38

– accused No.3 is concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶39