Karnataka High Court
Shri Bhagyajyothi Traders And Anr vs The Manager Karnataka State ... on 19 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749
CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201674 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI BHAGYAJYOTHI TRADERS,
SHOP NO.17/1/1,
KARATAGI ROAD,
SIDRAMPUR VILLAGE,
TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.
(PETITIONER NO.1 IS A PROPRIETARY FIRM
REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.2)
2. SHRI VENKOB
S/O HANUMANTAPPA,
Digitally signed PROP. OF SRI. BHAGYAJYOTHI TRADERS,
by SHOP NO.17/1/1,
LUCYGRACE KARATAGI ROAD,
Location: HIGH SIDRAMPUR VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TQ. SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HARSHAWARDHANAGOUDA PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGER,
KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749
CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023
HC-KAR
BANGALORE BR. SINDHANUR,
3RD GATE, APMC YARD,
SINDHANUR-584 101,
R/BY ITS BR. MANAGER
SRI. ABHISHEK CHARI
S/O YALLAPPA,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: BR. MANAGER, KSCMF,
R/O C/O MADHUCHANDRASHETTY,
H.NO.128, CHALUVADI ONI,
BUS STAND ROAD,
GANGAVATHI-583 227.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 (NEW),
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDHANUR UNDER
C.C.NO.11716/2021 INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED IN P.C.No.206/2021 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749
CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA) The petitioners being the accused in C.C.No.11716/2021, pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act').
2. Heard Sri Harshawardhanagouda Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anilkumar Navadagi, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the private complaint filed by the respondent is liable to be quashed?"-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749 CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023 HC-KAR My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
4. The facts of the case in brief are that, the respondent being the Manager of the Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Bangalore Branch, Sindhanur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation'), filed the private complaint in P.C. No.206/2021 before the Trial Court against accused No.1 being the proprietary concern and accused No.2 being the proprietor, arraying them as accused. It is the contention of the complainant that, he is running fertilizer business on behalf of Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Bangalore, dealing with various items such as coffee seeds, sugar, cloths, cement, other consumer items, agriculture inputs including the fertilizers and insecticides etc. Accused No.2 being the proprietor of accused No.1, purchased fertilizers since 2016-17 and said deal continued till 2019-20. The complainant has given -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749 CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023 HC-KAR the details of such purchase for the years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20.
5. It is the contention of the complainant that, accused No.2, on behalf of accused No.1, issued an undertaking letter dated 31.07.2019 admitting his liability to an extent of Rs.1,76,00,000/- and executed a registered agreement for sale dated 12.09.2019 in respect of 2023.43 sq. meter of land in Sy.No.17/1/1 in which, a godown measuring 840.57 sq. meter is situated. Said registered agreement was executed as security for the amount that was due, agreeing to cancel the agreement after clearance of the dues. The accused have not paid the amount that was due and when the complainant approached accused No.2, he issued three cheques for Rs.50,00,000/- each dated 10.02.2021, 15.03.2021 and 14.04.2021 respectively. It is towards payment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- out of the balance amount of Rs.4,05,01,628/-. When these three cheques were presented for encashment, the same were dishonoured as -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749 CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023 HC-KAR 'other reason/no date'. The complainant has issued the legal notice calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. Accused No.2 issued an untenable notice on 04.02.2021 with the malicious intention to dupe the Federation. It is stated that, the accused had personally approached the complainant-Federation and assured to clear all the dues. Thus, the cheques were came to be issued, which came to be dishonoured as stated above. It is stated that the accused have issued evasive reply to the legal notice, but have not repaid the cheque amount and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, the private complaint came to be filed.
6. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.11716/2021 against both the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. It is stated that, now the complainant has examined PW.1, who is being cross-examined by learned counsel for the accused. In the meantime, in the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749 CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023 HC-KAR year 2023, the present petition came to be filed by the accused, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the accused had issued the legal notice dated 04.02.2021 calling upon the complainant-Federation to return all the blank cheques issued as security. It is thereafter, the present compliant came to be filed. He further submitted that, even according to the complainant- Federation, accused No.2 had undertaken to execute the sale deed and there is a registered agreement dated 08.08.2019. In view of all these facts and evidence, it cannot be believed that the accused had issued the cheques referred to in the complaint and hence, he prays for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
8. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant-Federation that, disputed question of facts are raised by the petitioners before this Court seeking to quash the criminal -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749 CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023 HC-KAR proceedings, which is not permissible under law. Petitioners are placing reliance on various documents which are already produced before the Trial Court when PW.1 was examined. When prima facie case is made out and PW.1 is already examined in the witness box, the petitioners cannot be permitted to approach this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
9. On perusal of the materials on record, the respondent-Federation has filed the complaint in P.C.No.206/2021, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. A specific contention is raised that, the accused had issued three cheques dated 10.02.2021, 15.03.2021 and 14.04.2021, which were came to be dishonoured. Legal notice was issued, but the cheque amount was not paid and thereby, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749 CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023 HC-KAR
10. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners is referring to the averments made in the complaint to contend that, there was an earlier notice dated 04.02.2021 whereunder, the complainant was called upon to return the blank cheques issued as security. According to the complainant, there was a registered agreement for sale dated 08.08.2019. However, he admits that, the complainant had filed a complaint against its Manager, alleging misappropriation of the amount.
11. It is pertinent to note that, accused No.1 is not denying that it is a proprietary concern dealing with the complainant-Federation. It is also not disputed that, the cheques referred to above are belonging to the accused and they bear the signatures of accused No.2. Admittedly, those cheques were dishonoured when presented for encashment. Under these admitted facts, it is the contention of the complainant that, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749 CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023 HC-KAR
12. When serious dispute is there regarding the contentions taken by the parties and when accused No.2 admits issuance of the cheques with his signature, which came to be dishonoured, it is for the Trial Court to consider the oral and documentary evidence that may be placed before it to arrive at a right conclusion either to convict the accused or to acquit him.
13. The scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be enlarged to the extent of appreciating the disputed facts and disputed documents to form an opinion that the accused has not committed any offence and to give a clean chit to him. This Court cannot write a judgment of acquittal after considering the materials that are placed before it. The appreciation of the evidence is the prerogative of the Trial Court. The same cannot be assumed by this Court, acting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this petition.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4749 CRL.P No. 201674 of 2023 HC-KAR
14. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26