Bangalore District Court
Surekha Enterprises, Rep By Its Partner ... vs Mohammed Aga on 12 February, 2026
KABC0A0021732025
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL
BENGALURU, (CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N,
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 12th day of February 2026
Crl. Appeal. No.25232/2025
Appellantss/ 1. Surekha Enterprises,
Accused:- No.6, 2nd Cross,
Near Govt. School,
Puttenahalli Circle,
J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bengaluru-560 078.
Rept. By its Partner,
Mr. Rajashekar Reddy.
2. Mr. Rajashekar Reddy,
S/o B. Nageshwar Reddy,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.23, I Floor, 7th Block,
BDA Layout, Raghavenapalya,
Bengaluru-560 076.
[By Sri. A. Swaminath - Adv.,]
2 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025
V/s
Respondent/ Mr. Mohammed Aga,
Complainant: S/o Ali Aga,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o No.11, 6th Cross,
Lakshmi Road, Near Diva Shree,
Shanthinagara,
Bangalore-560 027.
[By Sri. Mohammed Siddiq - Adv.,]
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the Accused before the trial court, who suffered by the order passed by XIV ACJM, Bengaluru, in PCR No.52030/2025, dtd.6.2.2025, challenging the validity of the said order.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred to with their ranking assigned before the trial court.
3. The facts of the case:-
The Complainant initiated private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the Accused, alleging that, the Complainant has maintained 3 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 friendly relationship with the Accused No.2 and accordingly he approached the Complainant during the month of October 2024 seeking loan of Rs.12,00,000/-. As such the Complainant has credited amount in account of Accused through Bank on various dates for Rs.11,99,995/-. However, the Accused has not at all repaid the said amount to the Complainant and when the Complainant requested the Accused No.2 to repay the said amount, ultimately he has issued Cheque dtd: 17.8.2024 for Rs.5,10,000/-. When the Complainant presented the said Cheque for encashment, it was dishonored. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the Accused to repay the said loan amount. Inspite of receipt of notice, the Accused has not repaid the Cheque amount and thereby, the Appellants have committed the offense punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Trial Court for appropriate legal action against the Accused.
4. Before the Trial Court when the PCR No.52030/2025 posted for sworn statement of 4 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 Complainant only both Complainant and Accused have arrived at settlement for Rs.12,00,000/-.
5. The trial court noting the settlement between the parties and in view of memo filed by the Complainant for dismissal of complaint as settled only dismissed the complaint on 6.2.2025.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the Accused is in appeal on the following grounds:
1. The order passed by the Learned Magistrate in PCR No.52030/2025 dtd:
6.2.2025 is totally perverse, illegal, unlawful and bad in law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
2. The The Appellants states that initially the Complainant has filed the above case for recovery of Cheque amount of Rs.5,10,000/- with respect to Cheque in question bearing No.858812 dtd: 17.8.2024 for Rs.5,10,000/- drawn on IndusInd Bank, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, after filing of the complaint, prior to the recording of sworn statement, the Complainant himself took the Accused to the Court made his presence before the court along with a memo of settlement 5 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 on 6.2.2025 in which it was settled for Rs.12,00,000/- and managed to collect two post dated Cheque bearing No.00663 and 000664 both dtd: 28.4.2025 for Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- in lieu of Cheque No.858812 for Rs.5,10,000/- and also claimed additional amount of Rs.3,91,578/- towards the interest thereon.
3. The Appellants states that, the Appellants was about to comply the conditions of the Joint Memo within the stipulated period of time, unfortunately the business amount was stuck in a litigation and hence he is not in a position to make payment to the Respondent as agreed in the Joint Memo and the Appellants is in need of time to settle the amount to the Respondent, in the meantime the Respondent started demanding double the Cheque due amount and harassing the Appellants by sending messages to his mobile number, thereafter the Complainant personally met the Accused and his wife and by threatening legal consequences managed to collect additional Cheques bearing No.858813 & 858814 dtd: 27.4.2025 for Rs.7,00,000/- and 6 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 Rs.5,00,000/- respectively, in total the Complainant collected 04 Cheques totally amount of Rs.24,00,000/- and claiming the same illegally for the debt of Rs.5,10,000/- which is illegal and unlawful, hence the Appellants compelled to give stop payment to his banker, the Complainant may approach the Trial Court and may cause NBW and FLW against the Appellants for the non-
compliance of the Joint Memo terms and conditions and hence the Appellants apprehending his arrest in lieu of FLW & NBW approached this Court for necessary relief.
4. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to facts, materials and evidence placed on record and as such the order is liable to be set aside.
5. Under the above grounds the Appellants sought for acquittal by allowing the appeal.
7. Heard the counsel for Respondent on IA.No.1/2025 & IA.No.2/2025 and as well as on main petition. The Appellants have not addressed any arguments on IAs and main appeal, hence, arguments on behalf of Appellant has been taken as nil.
7 Crl.Appeal No.25232/20258. Perused the documents on record and also the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the complaint as not pressed.
9. On re-appreciation of the evidence, documents on record, the following points would emerge for the consideration of this court.
1. Whether the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to set aside?
2. Whether the order passed by the Trial Court calls for interference by the hands of this court?
3. Whether Appellants have made out sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 115 days in preferring the appeal?
3. What Order?
10. My finding on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Negative.
Point No.3 : In the Negative.8 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025
Point No.4 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS
11. POINT NOs.1 to 3:-
The definite case of the Complainant/Respondent is that the Complainant has maintained friendly relationship with the Accused No.2 and accordingly he approached the Complainant during the month of October 2024 seeking loan of Rs.12,00,000/-. As such the Complainant has credited amount in account of Accused through Bank on various dates for Rs.11,99,995/-. However, the Accused has not at all repaid the said amount to the Complainant and when the Complainant requested the Accused No.2 to repay the said amount, ultimately he has issued Cheque dtd: 17.8.2024 for Rs.5,10,000/-. When the Complainant presented the said Cheque for encashment, it was dishonored. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the Accused to repay the said loan amount. Inspite of receipt of notice, the Accused have not repaid the Cheque amount. Therefore, the Complainant 9 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 constrained to file the complaint under Section1 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. It is an admitted fact that the certified copy of order sheet produced by the Accused/Appellants reveals that on 6.2.2025 the Accused No.2 who is the Proprietor of the Accused No.1 voluntarily appeared without being summoned, thereafter the Advocate for Complainant filed a settlement memo signed by the Complainant, Accused No.2 and Advocate for Complainant stating that the parties have arrived at settlement for Rs.12,00,000/- and to pay the agreed amount, the Accused No.2 has issued two post dated Cheques dtd: 28.4.2025 for Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively towards partial payment of legally enforceable debt from the Accused.
13. Further the Learned Counsel for the also filed another memo stating that in view of settlement arrived, complaint is not pressed. Accordingly, the complaint has been dismissed as not-pressed.
14. Admittedly, the Appellants who is the Accused No.1 & 2 before the Trial Court have preferred this appeal on the ground that after filing 10 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 the complaint, prior to recording of sworn statement only the Complainant himself take the Accused to the court, made his presence before the court along with memo of settlement dtd: 6.2.2025 in which it was settled for Rs.12,00,000/- and illegally managed to collect two Cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively. In view of the Cheque No.858812 for Rs.5,10,000/- and also claimed additional amount of Rs.3,91,578/- towards interest therein. Further it is contended in the appeal memo that even though the Appellants was about to comply the condition of joint memo within the stipulated period, but due to business amount struck in litigation, he was unable to comply the same. Therefore, the Appellants No.1 & 2 was compelled to give instruction to stop payment to his banker in respect of subsequent Cheques, the Complainant may approach the Trial Court and in that even the court may cause NBW and FLW against the him, therefore, he approached this Court for necessary reliefs. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the order passed the Trial Court in PCR No.52030/2025 dtd:
6.2.2025.11 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025
15. The Respondent/Complainant has seriously opposed the IA.No.1/2025 & IA.No.2/2025 and as well as main appeal by filing separate objections on the main grounds that there is no proper explanation from the Appellants for the delay in preferring this appeal. The Appellants have not explained the long delay of 115 days in preferring this appeal. If the delay is not properly explained, the Court has to dismiss the appeal as delay cannot be condoned when the explanation is neither reasonable nor satisfactory. Further contended that the appeal itself is not at all maintainable and there is no grounds made out by the Appellants to admit the present appeal. Further contended that it is trait law that settlement arrived at before the Court cannot be treated as mere paper orders and entertaining of the instant appeal, especially it is time barred would amount to gross miscarriage of justice. The documents annexed along with the instant appeal itself depict the grounds urged by the Appellants herein. The present appeal is filed with sole intention to abuse the process of law and prevent the present Respondent from prosecuting his case and the settlement arrived at before the Trial Court.
12 Crl.Appeal No.25232/202516. Admittedly, in the present appeal, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities the Appellants counsel has not at all addressed his arguments on main appeal and as well as IA.No.1/2025 & IA.No.2/2025. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted his arguments on IA.No.1/2025 & IA.No.2/2025 and as well as main matter. In the arguments the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has reiterated most of the contents of objections filed to IA.No.1/2025 & IA.No.2/2025 and as well as objections to the main appeal.
17. It is relevant to mention here that prima- facie the appeal filed by the Appellants is not at all maintainable, as the Appellants have admitted about the settlement arrived between the Appellants and the Respondent dtd: 6.2.2025 before the Trial Court. Further the Appellant by admitting the contents of settlement memo only affixed his signature. Therefore, now the Appellants cannot say any contrary to the settlement arrived before the Trial Court dtd: 6.2.2025. Further in the appeal memo itself the Appellants have specifically stated that 13 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 they about the comply the conditions of joint memo within the stipulated period of time and due to business loss they have not made payments to the Respondent as agreed in the joint memo. In the meantime the Respondent demanding double the Cheques amount and made settlement etc. Further the Appellants herein have clearly admitted the contents of joint memo and as well as issuance of post dated Cheques dtd: 28.4.2025 in favour of Respondent herein for Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively. Such being the fact, the Appellants instead of complying the terms of memo of settlement dtd: 6.2.2025 and as well as order passed by the Trial Court dtd: 6.2.2025, filed the present appeal only to prolong to make payment of post dated Cheques amount to the Respondent and giving unnecessary troubles to the Respondent.
18. It is an admitted fact that as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, the Appellants herein have preferred this appeal nearly after lapse of 04 months from the date of settlement. Even there is no proper reasons mentioned in the application and affidavit for condoning the long delay of 115 14 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 days in preferring this appeal. It is bounden duty of the Appellants herein to adequately explain each day of delay in preferring the appeal. It is settled principle of law that if the delay is not properly explained, the appeal cannot be entertained. The conduct of Appellants shows inaction, lack of diligence, casual attitude towards legal proceedings which cannot be condoned merely on humanitarian or sympathetically grounds. Even the application is also not at all supported with any materials. The mere financial difficulty is pleaded in the appeal memo and in the applications are not at all sufficient to condone the long delay of 115 days. If the IA.No.1/2025 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act is allowed, great prejudice will cause to the Respondent.
19. Regarding IA.No.2/2025 is concerned, this Court has not at all stayed the operation and execution of the order passed by the Trial Court dtd:
6.2.2025, therefore, considering the IA.No.2/2025 does not arise.
20. Coming to the merits of the case, as aforesaid, the Appellants herein have not shown any 15 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 grounds in this appeal that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts, materials and evidence placed on record. On the other hand, the Trial Court with the consent of both Appellants and Respondent only has passed impugned order dtd:
6.2.2025 and the said order is lawful and it is binding on the Appellants herein. Further the very conduct of the Appellants herein for not submitting any arguments on the main appeal and as well as interim applications would also clearly goes to show that only to give unnecessary troubles to the Respondent, the present appeal and interim applications are filed.
21. In view of the above discussions made above, this Court feels that there is no bonafide grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dtd: 6.2.2025 and even the Appellants have also not made out any reasonable grounds to allow IA.No.1/2025. According, I answer Point No.1 to 3 are in the Negative.
22. Point No.4:
In view of the findings on the above points the appeal and IA.No.1/2025 filed by the Appellants 16 Crl.Appeal No.25232/2025 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal filed by the Appellants U/Sec.415(3) of BNSS, is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
The order passed by the Learned XIV ACJM, Bengaluru, in CC.No.52030/2025, dtd. 6.2.2025, is hereby confirmed.
The IA.No.1/2025 by the Appellants filed under Section 5 of Limitation is hereby dismissed.
Send a copy of this Judgment to the Trial Court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 12th of February 2026.) Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA NARAYANAPPA SRIPAD SRIPAD Date: 2026.02.13 17:14:35 +0530 [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).