- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12048 CRL.P No. 9991 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9991 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. JAGADEESH N, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE M. NANJAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.47/1, 7TH A CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M. SHIVAMALLEGOWDA, MAJOR, S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA, R/AT MANJUNATHANAGARA, BEHIND JEEVAN JYOTHI TRUST, KOLLEGAL TOWN, KOLLEGAL, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BALARAJ M.V, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1187/2022 ARISING OUT OF PCR.NO.82/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12048 CRL.P No. 9991 of 2022 THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLLEGAL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.1187/2022, before the Court of Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kollegala, for the offence Punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') has preferred this petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings. 2. Respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that, on 01.04.2021 accused received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from him and in discharge of the said liability, issued a post dated cheque bearing No.284518-560025038-290059-31 dated 23.03.2022 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru. The said cheque when presented to the Bank of Baroda, Kollegala Branch for encashment, was dishonoured with a shara “Bank - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12048 CRL.P No. 9991 of 2022 merged, presented cheque not valid”. Further, the legal notice issued by him was refused by the accused and therefore, he filed a complaint. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that, admittedly, the Drawee Bank has returned the cheque with an endorsement “Bank merged, presented cheque not valid”. Hence, the dishonor of cheque will not amount to any offence within the meaning of Section 138 of the NI Act, as it is clear that there was no account of the accused existing. He contended that when there was no account maintained by him, with the bank wherein, the cheque was presented and got dishonoured for the reason “Bank merged, presented cheque not valid” then it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act are made out. 4. He would also contend that the petitioner at no point of time borrowed any amount from the complainant and therefore, question of issuing a invalid post dated cheque does not arise. He would also contend that the petitioner has not received the notice and the averments made in the complaint that the petitioner has refused to receive the notice is also - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12048 CRL.P No. 9991 of 2022 incorrect. He has therefore, contended that the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent has contended that as per the Central Government order, the Syndicate Bank was merged with Canara Bank. Prior to its merger, the accused issued the cheque in question and later when the complainant met the accused on several times and requested him to issue a Canara Bank cheque, accused refused and as the cheque was post dated, he could not present the cheque till 23.03.2022. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly issued summons to the accused. He contended, proceedings cannot be quashed as all the procedures contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act has been complied with. 6. It is no doubt, the cheque was returned by the Bank with an endorsement "Bank merged, presented cheque not valid”. However, as per complaint, the accused issued the cheque in discharge of a legally recoverable debt and the said cheque when presented to the Bank was dishonoured. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12048 CRL.P No. 9991 of 2022 7. Legal necessities and the procedure which are supposed to be followed have been followed by the complainant before presenting the complaint. It is not in dispute that as per Central Government Order, the Syndicate Bank was merged with Canara Bank. The accused issued a cheque belonging to the syndicate bank, and by the time it was presented, the said bank had merged with the Canara Bank. It is the case of complainant that, since the accused refused to exchange the cheque, he was constrained to file a complaint before the Jurisdictional Court. 8. In this petition presented under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the validity of the cheque cannot be gone into. Further the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that no such cheque was issued and there was no legally dischargeable debt etc., also cannot be decided. The same has to be decided by the trial Court. Since, the proceedings are pending before the Trial Court, both the parties have ample opportunity to put forth their case. There is no merit in the petition and accordingly petition is dismissed. 9. I.A.No.2/2022 is dismissed as not pressed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12048 CRL.P No. 9991 of 2022 10. Observations made herein above are confined to disposal of the petition. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK