Silicon Technologies Vs D Rangappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Silicon Technologies Vs D Rangappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition allowed: the impugned orders dated 01.07.2023 (II A.C.J.M., C.C.No.20109/2021) and 22.01.2024 (IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Crl.A.No.56/2023) are set aside without entering into the merits; the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, where the petitioner shall have an opportunity to contest the matter by cross-examining the complainant and by leading his own evidence if he wishes; the parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 02.09.2025 without further notice; the Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either party (the prayer for acquittal was therefore not acceded to); if the amount deposited is still with the Court, it shall be kept in a nationalised bank for one year with an auto-renewal mandate; the Registry is directed to send back the trial court records.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint on merits while the proceedings stood stayed by the High Court's interim order in the accused's proceeding under Section 482 CrPC challenging the interim direction to pay 20% of the cheque amount, and whether the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal without noticing that infirmity.

Court's answer

When the proceeding before the Trial Court is stayed pursuant to an interim order granted by this Court in a proceeding where the accused has challenged the interim direction to pay money, the Trial Court could not have proceeded to hear the case on merits; it should have waited for further orders from the High Court and had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter as the proceeding was stayed.

Ratio / Principle

Without getting into the merits of the matter, the Trial Court committed a serious error in deciding the case on merits despite the stay, and unfortunately even the Appellate Court did not take note of the fact that the Trial Court could not have proceeded with the matter.

Key takeaways

Without entering into the merits of the case, the impugned orders (Trial Court conviction dated 01.07.2023 and First Appellate Court judgment dated 22.01.2024) are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, with liberty to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant and lead his own evidence; nothing is expressed on the merits of the claim of either party.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.PC) against concurrent findings under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act — Trial Court, on the complainant's interim application, had directed the accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim relief; the accused challenged that direction in a proceeding under S.482 CrPC before the High Court, which stayed further proceedings before the Trial Court and communicated the stay. The Trial Court, though aware of the stay, proceeded to hear the case on merits, convicted the accused under S.138 NI Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50,50,000/-; the First Appellate Court dismissed the accused's appeal without noticing the infirmity. Held: where proceedings before the Trial Court stand stayed pursuant to an interim order of the High Court, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to proceed and must await further orders; the Trial Court committed a serious error in deciding the case on merits, and the Appellate Court failed to note that the Trial Court could not have proceeded. Without entering into the merits, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, affording the petitioner opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and lead evidence; parties directed to appear on 02.09.2025; any amount deposited to be kept in a nationalised bank for one year with auto-renewal; nothing expressed on the merits of either party's claim. (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.; oral order dated 04-08-2025.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30124 CRL.RP No. 283 of 2024

HC-KAR

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

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 283 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SILICON TECHNOLOGIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, D.V ABHINANDAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O D N VENKATARAMAYA, R/AT NO.716, OPP.SHAKTI GANESHA TEMPLE, 1^ST B MAIN, 7^TH BLOCK, BANASHANAKARI 3^RD STAGE, GIRINAGAR BENGALURU - 560085.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRAVEEN C, ADVOCATE) AND:

D RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Digitally S/O DABBHAGULAPPA, signed by C R/AT NO.57, RAMASANDRA VILLAGE, HONNUR SABSULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, Location: BENGALURU - 560060. HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY K P, ADVOCATE) KARNATAKA

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY K P, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22.01.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.56/2023 BY THE LEARNED IX ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU AND 01.07.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED C/C II A.C.J.M BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20109/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30124 CRL.RP No. 283 of 2024

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is arising from a concurrent finding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court on interim application filed by the complainant has directed the accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount as an interim relief. This order was not complied.

The said order was called in question by the accused in a proceeding before this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. This Court has stayed the further proceedings before the Trial Court pending consideration of the said proceedings. The said order is communicated to the Trial Court. The Trial Court has taken note of the stay order. However, proceeded to hear the case on merits and convicted the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹50,50,000/-.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30124 CRL.RP No. 283 of 2024

HC-KAR

The accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. First Appellate Court was also dismissed the appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that since this Court granted a stay order staying the further proceedings before the Trial Court, the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case on merits and committed a grave error in hearing and deciding the case.

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant does not dispute the fact that there was a stay order granted by his Court which prohibited the Trial Court from proceeding with a trial and hearing. Further, taking note of the fact that the accused was not cooperating in the early disposal of the case and had not complied the interim direction to pay the interim compensation amount, has rightly proceeded to hear the case despite the stay order granted by this Court.

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30124 CRL.RP No. 283 of 2024

HC-KAR

When the proceeding before the Trial Court is

stayed pursuant to interim order granted by this Court in a proceeding where the accused has challenged the interim direction to pay the money, the Trial Court could not have proceeded to hear the case on merits, the Trial Court should have waited for further orders from the High Court. The Trial Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter as the proceeding was stayed.

Under these circumstances without getting into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court committed a serious error in deciding the case on merits. Unfortunately, even the Appellate Court did not take note of the fact that the Trial Court could not have proceeded with the matter.

Under these circumstances, without entering into

the merits of the case, the impugned orders are set-aside.

The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30124 CRL.RP No. 283 of 2024

HC-KAR

The Trial Court shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter by cross-examining the complainant and by leading his own evidence, if he wishes to.

The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 02.09.2025 without any further notice from the Trial Court.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. If the amount deposited is still with the Court, same shall be kept in a nationalised bank for a period of one year with auto renewal mandate.

The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CHS

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 41