- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15316 CRL.P No. 872 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 872 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. ARUNA KUMAR BHAT AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE ANANTH BHAT, R/AT D-4, DUKES MANOR, MATADAKANI ROAD, MANGALURU-575 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARUNAKARA P., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K. NARAYANA BHAT AGED 69 YEARS, S/O LATE KESHAVA BHAT, R/AT 2-544, ‘NANDESSHA’, KOMBETTU, PUTTUR-574201, DAKSHINA KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.275/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15316 CRL.P No. 872 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.275/2014 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. 2. The matter arises out of dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, in respect of which respondent No.2 filed a private complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I.Act’). 3. The grounds on which the present petition is filed are that, respondent No.2 has already filed a suit for recovery of money and the Civil Court has passed a decree in the said suit directing the petitioner to pay the amount and therefore, continuation of present proceedings will amount to double jeopardy. It is also contended that there is no legally enforceable debt as such. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15316 CRL.P No. 872 of 2022 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.2 herein filed O.S.No.11/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada and the said suit came to be decreed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.7,53,875/- with future interest at 12% p.a. on the decreetal amount and therefore, there is no justification in continuing the present proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.Purushotama Reddy and Another v. K. Sateesh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 505 to contend that a complaint, in terms of Section 138 of N.I. Act, would be maintainable even if a suit for recovery of money due from the borrower, is filed. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment has held that, simultaneous civil suit and complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act for the same cause of action are maintainable. It has also held that, determination in money suit when fine is already paid in criminal proceedings for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15316 CRL.P No. 872 of 2022 the same cause of action should be taken into consideration by the civil Court while passing a decree. 7. It is not in dispute that against the order passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.11/2014, an appeal in RA No.5001/2022 is pending before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. Hence, if the parties are willing to settle the matter, the same can be brought to the notice of the Court in the said appeal. Petitioner is also at liberty to seek quashing of the proceedings by filing a separate petition before this Court, if the matter is settled between the parties. With the above observation, petition is dismissed. I.A.No.1/2024 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT:ar