Partly allowed

M/S. Rayen Steels Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S. Xindia Steels Limited

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2026CRL.P/6654/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitions in part, quashing proceedings against accused Nos. 3 and 4 (Directors) because the complaint lacked specific allegations that they were in charge of the company's affairs, while upholding proceedings against the company (accused No. 1) and its Managing Director (accused No. 2) who issued the cheque.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings quashed against accused Nos. 3 and 4 (petitioner Nos. 3 and 4); petitions rejected for accused Nos. 1 and 2.

M/S. Rayen Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Xindia Steels Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50996 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6654 of 2019

¶4

CNR: KAHC010426232019

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6655 OF 2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6654 OF 2019

¶10

IN CRL.P NO.6655/2019:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

M/S. RAYEN STEELS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. GATTU RAMU, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY.NO.1115D, 1115E, HARAGINADONI ROAD, VENI VEERAPUR CROSS, BELLARY-583 104.

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MR. GATTU RAMU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY NO.1115D, 1115E, HARAGINADONI ROAD, VENI VEERAPUR CROSS, BELLARY-583 104.

¶15

MR. SHESHANKOTI PRAKASH, DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY NO.1115D, 1115E, HARAGINADONI ROAD, VENI VEERAPUR CROSS, BELLARY-583 104.

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:50996 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6654 of 2019

¶19

CNR: KAHC010426232019

¶20

MR. ACCHANALA MANOHAR, DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY NO.1115D, 1115E, HARAGINADONI ROAD, VENI VEERAPUR CROSS, BELLARY-583 104.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. J.M. UMESHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

M/S. XINDIA STEELS LIMITED, ”THE ESTATE” 10^TH FLOOR, 121, DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. SWAMINATHAN, (GM -ADMIN & SALES).

¶25

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROHIT MAMMEN ALEX & SRI. ANJAN DEV N., ADVOCATES)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDIGNS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.55993/2018 FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE LVII CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.

¶27

IN CRL.P NO.6654/2019:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

M/S. RAYEN STEELS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. GATTU RAMU,

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:50996 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6654 of 2019

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CNR: KAHC010426232019

¶34

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY. NO.1115D, 1115E, HARAGINADONI ROAD, VENI VEERAPUR CROSS, BELLARI-583 104.

¶35

MR. GATTU RAMU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY. NO.1115D, 1115E, HARAGINADONI ROAD, VENI VEERAPUR CROSS, BELLARI-583 104.

¶36

MR. SHESHANKOTI PRAKASH, DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY. NO.1115D, 1115E, HARAGINADONI ROAD, VENI VEERAPUR CROSS, BELLARI-583 104.

¶37

MR. ACCHANALA MANOHAR, DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY. NO.1115D, 1115E, HARAGINADONI ROAD, VENI VEERAPUR CROSS, BELLARI-583 104.

¶38

...PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. UMESHA MURTHY J M., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

M/S. XINDIA STEELS LIMITED, ”THE ESTATE” 10^TH FLOOR, 121, DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶42

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:50996 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6654 of 2019

¶45

CNR: KAHC010426232019

¶46

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SWAMINATHAN, (GM-ADMIN AND SALES).

¶47

...RESPONDENT

¶48

(BY SRI. ROHIT MAMMEN ALEX, ADVOCATE)

¶49

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.55994/2018 FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT ON THE FILE OF LVII CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.

¶50

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

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶54

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Trial Court has committed an error in taking the cognizance even though resolution and invoices are not produced. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that nothing is stated in the complaint in respect of accused No.3 is concerned. In paragraph No.2 of the complaint it is stated that accused Nos.2 and 4 are incharge of and

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50996 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6654 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

CNR: KAHC010426232019

¶58

responsible for the conduct of business of accused No.1 company.

¶59

3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that these two petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 to 4. The learned counsel would submit that accused No.2 is the Managing Director of the Company and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the Directors of the company. The accused Nos.2 and 4 were incharge of the affairs of the company and the same is stated in paragraph No.2 of the complaint.

¶60

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, private complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused No.1 is the company and accused No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1 company and admittedly, cheque was issued by accused No.2 as a Managing Director of the company. Though accused Nos.3 and 4 are Directors, except a single sentence made in the complaint in paragraph No.2 that accused Nos.2 and 4 are incharge of and responsible for the conduct of business of accused No.1 company, nothing is stated in respect of accused

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:50996 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6654 of 2019

¶63

¶64

CNR: KAHC010426232019

¶65

No.3 is concerned. In respect of accused No.4 is concerned, nothing is stated that he was incharge of affairs of the company. When no such specific allegations are made, the question of taking cognizance against accused Nos.3 and 4 does not arise and hence, the Trial Court has committed an error in taking cognizance against accused Nos.3 and 4 and they are only the Directors of the Company. No specific averments are made that they are in charge of affairs and responsible for the affairs of the company.

¶66

5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶67

following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) Both the petitions are allowed in part.

¶70

(ii) The proceedings initiated against accused Nos.3 and 4/petitioner Nos.3 and 4 is quashed.

¶71

(iii) The petition in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is rejected.

¶72

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶73

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

M/S. Rayen Steels Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S. Xindia Steels Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rayen Steels Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S. Xindia Steels Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases