- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3535 CRL.P No. 100514 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100514 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SANDEEP S/O. INDRAMAL (BACHUBAI) SANGHVI AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. TIMBER MERCHANT, R/O. M. R. ENTERPRISES, 76, NEW TIMBER MARKET, BHAVANI PETH, PUNE-411042. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: ASHOK S/O. DHARAMACHAND OSWAL AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICUTLURE, R/O. MALALI GALLI, NEAR GANDHI CIRCLE, A/P MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587313. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS, AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2 IN CC NO. 194/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUDHOL AT MUDHOL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 138 OF NATOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.25 18:00:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3535 CRL.P No. 100514 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition is filed challenging the cognizance taken for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), stating that Accused No.1 had issued a cheque for a sum of ₹12,40,000/- towards the repayment of money borrowed for business purposes. When presented for realization, the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance and recording a sworn statement, issued a summons. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only averment in the complaint against Accused No.2 is that he introduced the complainant to Accused No.1. Therefore, the essential elements required to constitute an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are conspicuously absent. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. 4. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint averments clearly disclose that Accused No.2 has committed an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He contended that the veracity of the allegations should be considered at the time of trial and cannot be examined in this petition. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3535 CRL.P No. 100514 of 2024 6. Admittedly, Accused No.2 is not a signatory to the cheque. The cheque was allegedly issued by Accused No.1, while the petitioner has been arraigned as Accused No.2 solely on the ground that he introduced Accused No.1 to the complainant. There is no legally enforceable debt against the accused No.2. 7. In the complaint, the complainant stated that cognizance to be taken only against Accused No.1. However, the learned Magistrate, without considering the averments made in the complaint, has also taken cognizance against the petitioner/Accused No.2, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 8. In these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.194/2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, insofar as they relate to the petitioner/Accused No.2, are hereby quashed. 9. The trial Court shall proceed against the other accused in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. The observations made herein are only for the purpose of the present petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7