Dismissed¶35

Sri Aruna Kumar Bhat v. Sri K Narayana Bhat

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2025CRL.P/872/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Mohammad Nawaz, J., 09-04-2025) dismisses CRL.P No. 872 of 2022 seeking quashing of C.C.No.275/2014 (Section 138 NI Act) over dishonoured cheque of Rs.4,50,000/-; double-jeopardy argument rejected in light of civil decree in O.S.No.11/2014 (Rs.7,53,875/- + 12% p.a.) and D.Purushotama Reddy v. K. Sateesh (2008) 8 SCC 505 on maintainability of simultaneous civil suit and Section 138 complaint; appeal RA No.5001/2022 pending; settlement route and liberty to file fresh quashing petition noted; I.A.No.1/2024 disposed of.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed and I.A.No.1/2024 disposed of. The Court observed that the petitioner may file a fresh quashing petition before this Court if the matter is settled between the parties. ¶35

Sri Aruna Kumar Bhat Vs Sri K Narayana Bhat — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition dismissed and I.A.No.1/2024 disposed of. The Court observed that the petitioner may file a fresh quashing petition before this Court if the matter is settled between the parties.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.275/2014 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru, should be quashed. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The criminal petition seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.275/2014 is dismissed.

¶35

Key takeaways

If the parties are willing to settle the matter, it can be brought to the notice of the Court in RA No.5001/2022; the petitioner is at liberty to seek quashing of the proceedings by filing a separate petition before this Court if the matter is settled between the parties.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. by the issuer of a dishonoured cheque (Rs.4,50,000/-) seeking quashing of C.C.No.275/2014 under Section 138 NI Act pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangaluru. Petitioner argued that a civil suit (O.S.No.11/2014) for the same debt had already been decreed (Rs.7,53,875/- plus future interest at 12% p.a.), making continuation double jeopardy, and that there was no legally enforceable debt. Respondent relied on D.Purushotama Reddy and Another v. K. Sateesh (2008) 8 SCC 505, under which a Section 138 complaint is maintainable even if a recovery suit is filed, and the Court recounted that simultaneous civil suit and Section 138 complaint for the same cause of action are maintainable. Noting that an appeal (RA No.5001/2022) against the civil decree was pending before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Puttur, the Court observed that any settlement could be brought to the notice of the Court in that appeal and that the petitioner remained free to file a fresh quashing petition upon settlement. Petition dismissed; I.A.No.1/2024 disposed of.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15316 CRL.P No. 872 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 872 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶5

528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. ARUNA KUMAR BHAT AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE ANANTH BHAT, R/AT D-4, DUKES MANOR, MATADAKANI ROAD, MANGALURU-575 006.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. K. NARAYANA BHAT AGED 69 YEARS, S/O LATE KESHAVA BHAT, R/AT 2-544, ‘NANDESSHA’, KOMBETTU, PUTTUR-574201, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.275/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15316 CRL.P No. 872 of 2022

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.275/2014 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada.

¶21

The matter arises out of dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, in respect of which respondent No.2 filed a private complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I.Act’).

¶22

The grounds on which the present petition is filed

¶23

are that, respondent No.2 has already filed a suit for recovery of money and the Civil Court has passed a decree in the said suit directing the petitioner to pay the amount and therefore, continuation of present proceedings will amount to double jeopardy. It is also contended that there is no legally enforceable debt as such.

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:15316 CRL.P No. 872 of 2022

¶25

¶26

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.2 herein filed O.S.No.11/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Puttur, Dakshina

¶27

Kannada and the said suit came to be decreed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.7,53,875/- with future interest at 12% p.a. on the decreetal amount and therefore, there is no justification in continuing the present proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.Purushotama Reddy and Another v. K. Sateesh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 505 to contend that a complaint, in terms of Section 138 of N.I. Act, would be maintainable even if a suit for recovery of money due from the borrower, is filed.

¶29

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment has held that, simultaneous civil suit and complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act for the same cause of action are maintainable. It has also held that, determination in money suit when fine is already paid in criminal proceedings for

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:15316 CRL.P No. 872 of 2022

¶32

the same cause of action should be taken into consideration by

¶33

the civil Court while passing a decree.

¶34

It is not in dispute that against the order passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.11/2014, an appeal in RA No.5001/2022 is pending before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. Hence, if the parties are willing to settle the matter, the same can be brought to the notice of the Court in the said appeal. Petitioner is also at liberty to seek quashing of the proceedings by filing a separate petition before this Court, if the matter is settled between the parties.

¶35

With the above observation, petition is dismissed.

¶36

I.A.No.1/2024 is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶38

TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT:ar

Sri Aruna Kumar Bhat v. Sri K Narayana Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Aruna Kumar Bhat v. Sri K Narayana Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jay Ramani Vs State of Karnataka

Smt N Manjula Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Subramanya v Vs Renuka Nayak H

Binu Chacko Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sravana Kumar P Vs State by Basavanagudi Women Police

Sri M E Harsha Vs the State of Karnataka