Disposed¶41

Samarjit Kaur v. M/S Tvs Credit Services Ltd.

Negotiable Instruments Act, S.138 – Quashing refused

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2025CRL.P/6680/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: S.138 NI Act; Section 482 Cr.P.C / 528 BNSS; quashing; C.C.No.6650/2023; SCCH-22 Bengaluru; subsequent cheque dated 07.03.2023 No.288 HDFC Bank; earlier cheque dated 19.04.2022; C.C.No.8974/2022; same liability; impleadment rejected 17.07.2023; Crl.P.No.13904/2023 allowed and C.C.No.8974/2022 quashed 07.01.2025; Samarjit Kaur; Manpreet Singh Manchanda; M/s TVS Credit Services Ltd; M/s Manchanda Autos; Kusuma Pavan Chokira; liberty reserved to Trial Court; rival contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take up all contentions in C.C.No.6650/2023 before the Trial Court; all rival contentions between the parties kept open to be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law. ¶41

Samarjit Kaur Vs M/S Tvs Credit Services Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.6650/2023 under Section 138 N.I. Act in respect of the subsequent cheque dated 07.03.2023 (No.288, HDFC Bank) can be quashed on the ground that the respondent-complainant had already initiated C.C.No.8974/2022 in respect of an earlier cheque dated 19.04.2022 arising out of the very same liability, and its application to implead the petitioner therein was rejected on 17.07.2023.

¶23

Court's answer

Merely because the respondent-complainant instituted proceedings in C.C.No.8974/2022 in relation to a cheque of the year 2022, that circumstance cannot be made the basis to challenge the present proceedings in relation to the subsequent cheque dated 07.03.2023; accordingly, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

No valid or sufficient ground has been made out by the petitioner for quashing the instant proceedings in C.C.No.6650/2023, particularly since Crl.P.No.13904/2023 (against the earlier-cheque case C.C.No.8974/2022) has been allowed and those proceedings quashed by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, S.138 – Quashing refused – Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C) against proceedings in C.C.No.6650/2023 (XX Addl. Judge Court of Small Causes and ACMM, Bengaluru, SCCH-22) concerning a subsequent cheque dated 07.03.2023 (No.288, HDFC Bank) – Held, the mere circumstance that the complainant had earlier instituted C.C.No.8974/2022 in respect of an earlier cheque dated 19.04.2022 arising out of the very same liability (with impleadment of the petitioner rejected on 17.07.2023) cannot be made the basis to challenge the later proceedings; prosecution of the subsequent-cheque case is maintainable – Particularly so as the related Crl.P.No.13904/2023 was allowed and C.C.No.8974/2022 quashed by this Court on 07.01.2025 – Petition disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions before the Trial Court, with all rival contentions kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:264 CRL.P No. 6680 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6680 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SAMARJIT KAUR W/O MANPREET SINGH MANCHANDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A HOUSE NO. 469 A, SECTOR -61, CHANDIGARH - 160036

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHRUV UTHAPPA K G, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S TVS CREDIT SERVICES LTD HEAD OFFICE AT, ‘CHAITANYA’ NO. 12, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, NUNGAMABAKKAM CHENNAI - 600006 REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA LEGAL MANAGER MRS KUSUMA PAVAN CHOKIRA

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

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

¶14

(BY SRI. SURESH V, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF C.C.NO.6650/2023 (ANNEXURE-P2) WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM, BENGALURU (SCCH-22) P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:264 CRL.P No. 6680 of 2024

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.6652/2023 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in which the petitioner is arrayed as accused.

¶22

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

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in relation to the very same liability and arising out of the earlier cheque dated 19.04.2022, the respondent-complainant has initiated proceedings in C.C.No.8974/2022 against the petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. Manchanda Autos, a proprietary concern, in which the respondent-complainant sought to implead the petitioner and the same having been rejected vide order dated 17.07.2023, the respondent would not be entitled to prosecute the present proceedings in relation to the subsequent cheque dated 07.03.2023 bearing No.288 drawn on HDFC Bank arising out of the same liability and as such, the same deserves to be quashed.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentcomplainant submits that in relation to the earlier cheque of the year 2022, the respondent complainant having instituted

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:264 CRL.P No. 6680 of 2024

¶27

proceedings in C.C.No.8974/2022 against M/s. Manchanda Autos, the petitioner herein has preferred a criminal petition, which is pending before this Court. It is submitted that since the said proceedings are in relation to an earlier cheque, the present petition in relation to a subsequent cheque dated 07.03.2023 are maintainable, not withstanding the fact that the present proceedings are in relation to the very same liability. It is further submitted that the respondent-complainant does not have objection to the aforesaid criminal petition in relation to the earlier cheque to

¶28

be quashed by this Court and the present proceedings being directed to be continued for disposal, in accordance with law.

¶29

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact and matter on record that the earlier proceedings in Crl.P.No.13904/2023 are in relation to a cheque of the year 2022, while the present proceedings are in relation to the alleged cheque dated 07.03.2023, subsequent to institution of Crl.P.No.13904/2023. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that merely because the respondentcomplainant has instituted the proceedings in C.C.No.8974/2022 in relation to a cheque of the year 2022, the said circumstance cannot

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:264 CRL.P No. 6680 of 2024

¶32

be made the basis to her to challenge the present proceedings in relation to the subsequent cheque dated 07.03.2023 and consequently, the said contention urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶33

It is also relevant to state that as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that the earlier proceedings in C.C.No.8974/2022, which are pending before this Court in Crl.P.No.13904/2023, may be quashed by directing that the present petition to be continued to be disposed of in accordance with law, I am of the considered opinion that no valid or sufficient ground has been made out by the present petitioner for quashing the instant proceedings, particularly when Crl.P.No.13904/2023 has been allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.8974/2022 have been quashed by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025.

¶34