Allowed¶40

Jainuddin v. Manjegowda

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2026CRL.P/7166/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 143-A NI Act prospective operation; interim compensation 20% of cheque amount; S.138 NI Act cheque dishonour complaint; offence dated 20.05.2018 pre-dating 01.09.2018 commencement; GJ Raja v. Tejraj Surana AIR 2019 SC 3817 applied; quashing of interim compensation order and revisional order; S.482 CrPC petition; S.397 CrPC revision; CRL.P No. 7166 of 2019; High Court of Karnataka; Amending Act no.20/2018.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order dated 08.04.2019 of the trial Court in CC no.2567/2018 (allowing Section 143-A interim compensation application) and order dated 25.06.2019 of the District Court in Criminal Revision Petition no.91/2019 quashed; trial Court directed to expedite disposal of the main matter. ¶40

Jainuddin Vs Manjegowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (introduced by Amending Act no.20/2018 with effect from 01.09.2018) applies retrospectively to an offence under Section 138 NI Act stated to have occurred on 20.05.2018, i.e., before the section came into force.

¶39

Court's answer

Proceeding on the Supreme Court's ruling in GJ Raja v. Tejraj Surana, this Court took the amendment inserting Section 143-A into the NI Act to be prospective in nature, applicable only to offences committed after introduction of the section into the statute book.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Since the incident giving rise to the Section 138 offence occurred on 20.05.2018, before Section 143-A came into force on 01.09.2018, Section 143-A of NI Act would not apply, and the petition would succeed.

¶39

Key takeaways

The trial Court's order dated 08.04.2019 in CC no.2567/2018 allowing the Section 143-A application and the District Court's order dated 25.06.2019 in Criminal Revision Petition no.91/2019 were quashed, and the trial Court was directed to expedite disposal of the main matter.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Ravi V Hosmani, J) allowed a criminal petition under S.482 CrPC filed by the accused in a private complaint under S.138 NI Act, quashing (i) the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan's order dated 08.04.2019 in CC no.2567/2018 allowing the complainant's application under S.143-A NI Act for interim compensation (20% of cheque amount payable within 60 days) and (ii) the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan's order dated 25.06.2019 in Crl.R.P. no.91/2019 dismissing the accused's revision under S.397 CrPC. Following the Supreme Court in GJ Raja v. Tejraj Surana, AIR 2019 SC 3817, the Court held S.143-A (inserted by Amending Act no.20/2018 w.e.f. 01.09.2018) to be prospective; since the offence arose on 20.05.2018, S.143-A did not apply. The District Court's contrary view, resting on M/s. Ginni Garments (P&H HC) and Narasimha Murthy v. Santhosh J (2019 (2) KCCR 1375), was not adopted. Trial Court directed to expedite the main matter.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35955 CRL.P No. 7166 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7166 OF 2019

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

JAINUDDIN S/O ABBUSALI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT CEMENT SALES & STEEL AGENCIES M.G. ROAD, MUDIGERE CHICKMAGALUR - 577 132.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI HARSHA G.C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT SARASWATHI PURAM 7^TH CROSS, ADVOCATE NANDHINI NILAYA HASSAN - 573 201.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2019 IN C.C.NO.2567/2018 MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HASSAN AND ALSO ORDER DATED 25.06.2019 MADE IN CRL.R.P.NO.91/2019 BY THE 2^nd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S.143A OF THE N.I.ACT.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:35955 CRL.P No. 7166 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging order dated 08.04.2019 passed by Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hassan ( Trial Court ) in CC no.2567/2018 on application filed by respondent under Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( NI Act ) and order dated 25.06.2019 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan ( District Court ) in Criminal Revision Petition no.91/2019, this petition is filed.

¶26

Sri Harsha G.C., learned counsel appearing for Sri Nishit Kumar, advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner was accused in private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. In said petition, respondent had filed application under Section 143-A of NI Act for interim compensation. Though same was opposed, without proper consideration and application of mind, learned trial Judge allowed application and directed petitioner to pay 20% of cheque amount within 60 days. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition no.91/2019 under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC ) before District Court.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35955 CRL.P No. 7166 of 2019

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Though Section 143-A of NI Act, as inserted by amendment, was held to be prospective in nature by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GJ Raja v. Tejraj Surana , reported

¶30

in AIR 2019 SC 3817 , learned District Judge relied upon decisions of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in M/s. Ginni Garments v. M/s. Sethi Garments and this Court in Narasimha Murthy v. Santhosh J , reported in 2019 (2) KCCR 1375 and holding it to be retrospective and dismissed revision petition.

¶31

In view of above, judgment passed by trial Court was without proper application of mind and District Court had erred holding amendment to NI Act inserting Section 143-A to be retrospective in nature was contrary to law and sought for allowing petition.

¶32

There is no representation on behalf of respondent. Since matter is of year 2019, same is taken up for disposal.

¶33

This petition is by petitioner (accused) challenging order passed by trial Court in allowing application filed under Section 143-A of NI Act and dismissing revision petition filed by petitioner against said order.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:35955 CRL.P No. 7166 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

In GJ Raja 's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶38

has held amendment to NI Act, inserting Section 143-A to be prospective in nature i.e. it would be applicable only in case of offences committed after introduction of Section 143 into statute book.

¶39

Perusal of private complaint would indicate that incident giving rise to offence under Section 138 of NI Act is stated to have occurred on 20.05.2018, whereas Section 143-A of NI Act was introduced by Amending Act no.20/2018 with effect from 01.09.2018. Consequently, Section 143-A of NI Act would not apply. In view of above, petition would succeed.

¶40

Accordingly, petition is allowed , order dated 08.04.2019 passed by trial Court in CC no.2567/2018 on an application filed by respondent under Section 143-A of NI Act and order dated 25.06.2019 passed by District Court in Criminal Revision Petition no.91/2019 are quashed . Trial Court is directed to expedite disposal of main matter.

¶41

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶42

GRD

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Jainuddin v. Manjegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainuddin v. Manjegowda

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

Smt Varalakshmamma Vs State by Basavanagudi W P S

M/S. Hikal Limited Vs M/S. Raffa Trading Company

Mr Vinay S Vs Mr N Venkataramana Reddy

Kemparaju T L Vs State of Karnataka

S. Yathiraj Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Mr Fawaz Ahammed