- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101150 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI PRATEEK S/O. MADHAV MORLEKAR, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, RESIDING AT: EESHA APARTMENTS, BUILDING NO.B/2/F/1, BHUKTI WADO, PORVORI, BARDEZ, GOA-403501. 2. SHRI. ABHIJEETBHATE, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESIDING AT SAMARTH COLONY, LAXMI NAGAR, GANESHPURHINDALGA, BELAGAVI-591108. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.H. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. MANOJ S/O. APPAJI @ SINAPPA HEBBALKAR, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. #280, CCB NO.30, OPP. SHIVAJI GARDEN, SANT SENA ROAD, SHASTRI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAM P.GHORPADE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.748/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III JMFC, BELAGAVI AND PERUSE THE SAME AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.748/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III JMFC, BELAGAVI, OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 120, 193, 203, 209, 354, 385, 403, 406, 417, 420, 426, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC., AND ETC.,. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners preferred this Criminal Petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.748/2021 pending on the file of III JMFC Court at Belagavi1. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondent herein filed a private complaint stating that he is the brother of one Ram Hebbalkar, who was involved in the business of share market, namely N.G. Rathi Company, Pune. He has also stated that, the petitioner No.2 was an associate with his brother Ram Hebbalkar. During November-2018, due to heavy losses sustained in the 1 For short, ‘the Trial Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 business, the brother of the respondent suffered from a mental shock and ran away from the house on 30.12.2018. 3. He has further submitted that, the clients who invested huge amount in the said business came to know that the brother of the respondent had run away with money, demanded the amount from petitioner No.2. As the situation went out of control, the petitioner No.2 lodges a complaint against the brother of the respondent before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Belagavi. The Assistant Commissioner of Police directed the CPI to investigate the matter. The CPI went to the house of respondent along with the subordinates and with petitioner No.2 and started conducting the investigation. During investigation, the police have seized certain documents and electronic gadgets of the brother of the respondent. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent having learnt that the things gone worst, issued several cheques to the respective investors. The investors after receiving the cheques approached the jurisdictional Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 seeking remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812. 5. The petitioner No.1 has also filed a private complaint seeking remedy under the N.I. Act. The petitioner No.1 tendered his evidence in the said case as a complainant before the jurisdictional JMFC Court at Panaji - Goa. The respondent being aggrieved by the evidence filed a private complaint before the IV Additional JMFC, Belagavi, seeking for suitable action against the petitioners for having tendered the false evidence against the brother of the respondent. 6. Heard Sri. S. H. Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Ram P. Ghorpade, learned counsel for respondent. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of taking cognizance is contrary to the provisions under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the JMFC Court at Belagavi, is having no 2 For short, ‘N.I. Act’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 jurisdiction to take cognizance as the evidence was tendered before the jurisdictional Court at Goa and the Court at Goa had jurisdiction to entertain such applications. If at all, if any, grievance to the respondent, the respondent ought to have filed a similar application before the said Court for suitable action against the petitioners. Since, the Trial Court took cognizance for the offences whereby the evidence tendered before the Court at Goa, the same is not maintainable. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the order of taking cognizance may be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners pray to allow the petition. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the order of taking cognizance is proper for the reasons that the transaction had taken place at Belagavi, subsequently, it was transferred to Goa. Petitioner No.1 is the resident of Goa. Petitioner No.2 is the resident of Belagavi. However, the cheque got bounced at Belagavi. Therefore, Goa Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 said complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, the Court while taking cognizance considered the transactions between the respondent and the petitioners and took cognizance which is appropriate and there is no reason to interfere with the said order of taking cognizance. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the order of taking cognizance by the Trial Court, it is appropriate to refer Section 195 of Cr.P.C., before adverting to the merits of the case. 10. Section 195 of Cr.P.C., is reads as under: “195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.—(1) No Court shall take cognizance— (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), [except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.] (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate: Provided that— - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.” 11. On careful reading of the above said provision it makes it clear that, if any offence is enumerated under this provision, and the same is said to have been committed, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of that Court as that court may authorise it in writing in this way or of some other Courts to which that Court is subordinate, the complaint or cognizance have not been taken. In this case, the Trial Court has committed error by taking cognizance of the case of which the petitioner No.1 had tendered his evidence in Goa. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14095 CRL.P No. 101150 of 2022 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii)The proceedings in C.C.No.748/2021 on the file of III JMFC, Belagavi, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE SMM / CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13