- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38196 CRL.P No. 13146 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13146 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. VEERENDRA PATIL S/O. LATE MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/A: SHIRAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. BASAVARAJA, S/O. LATE. JEDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A: MATTIKAL, ANEKONDA, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR G M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE -560001. 2. RAVI, S/O. REVANASIDDAPPA KURKI, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38196 CRL.P No. 13146 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A: ALURU VILLAGE - 577512, DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.2271/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 5 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking quashing proceedings pending in CC No.227/2025 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Davanagere on the ground that respondent No.2 has lodged a false complaint taking advantage of the acquittal order in his favour in C.C.No.914/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38196 CRL.P No. 13146 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 – State. 3. Respondent No.2 has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), in PCR No.24/2019, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While recording his sworn statement, Respondent No.2 – the complainant produced certain documents, including the judgment rendered in Criminal Case No.914/2017, as well as an audio recording contained in a CD. On the basis of these prima facie materials, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. It is this order of cognizance which is presently under challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the acquittal in C.C.No.914/2017 cannot be relied upon to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38196 CRL.P No. 13146 of 2025 offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC. Though the judgment in C.C.No.914/2017 was not initially placed before the Court, the petitioner produced the same during the course of arguments when specifically called upon by this Court. 5. On examining the judgment in C.C.No.914/2017, it emerges that accused No.2 in the present proceedings had filed a private complaint against Respondent No.2 – the complainant for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). In those proceedings, the complainant was arrayed as an accused. The complainant defended himself by asserting that he had conducted the transaction exclusively with Petitioner No.1 – accused No.1 and that the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act had been falsely initiated against him by misusing the cheque. The complainant specifically stated that he had no transaction with accused No.2. Upon considering the evidence led by the complainant (who was the accused in that case), the learned Magistrate recorded - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38196 CRL.P No. 13146 of 2025 a finding that the transaction in question was with Petitioner No.1 – Veerendra Patil and not with accused No.2. Furthermore, it was observed that the cheque issued by Respondent No.2 had been misused, and that PW1 had failed to specifically rebut the defence raised by the accused. On this basis, the complainant was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 6. It is evident that merely because the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in C.C.No.914/2017, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to grant any indulgence. The question as to whether the private complaint filed by Petitioner No.2 against Respondent No.2 – the complainant for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed at the instance of Petitioner No.1 is a matter to be determined in the course of the pending proceedings. The grounds raised by the petitioners in the present petition are matters that must be set up as a defence during trial and the petitioners are required to substantiate that the filing of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38196 CRL.P No. 13146 of 2025 the private complaint was not at their instance and that they had no role in initiating the proceedings. Whether these contentions can be established can only be determined by adducing rebuttal evidence in the trial proceedings. 7. In view of the foregoing, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45