- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11446 CRL.P No. 103133 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103133 OF 2023 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI R. RAMAKRISHNAPPA @ SOMANNA S/O. RAMAYYA, AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.6 G-CROSS, OPPOSITE SHRI. POOJAMMA TEMPLE, GURAGUNTE PALYA, BENGALURU. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ESTABLISHED UNDER THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT, 1951, HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT: P.B. ROAD, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD-580 009, BY ITS MANAGER, F AND A N.G. NAYAK. … RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYS THAT THE NECESSARY ORDERS MAY BE PASSED TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 142(B) OF N.I. ACT IN (P.C. NO.62/2017) P.C. NO.76/2019 DATED 11/12/2019 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUBBALLI, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 05.02.2022 UNDER SECTION 204 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C. NO.33/2022 (P.C. NO.76/2019) ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 138 OF NI ACT, BE QUASHED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11446 CRL.P No. 103133 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 11.12.2019 passed in PC No.76/2019 (Old PC No.62/2017) pending before the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent State Financial Corporation had filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, before the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli. It appears that the said complaint was returned to the respondent-complainant with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Competent Court on or before 01.08.2017. The complainant had subsequently presented the complaint before the jurisdictional Court and also had filed an application seeking condonation of 28 days caused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11446 CRL.P No. 103133 of 2023 in presenting the complaint, which was allowed by the order impugned and aggrieved by the same petitioner who is an accused in the said proceedings is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that though the complaint was returned to the complainant with a direction to present the same before the competent Court on or before 01.08.2017, the same was not complied with, and on the other hand, the complaint is filed belatedly. The affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay is dated 12th October 2017. Therefore, the delay caused in filing the complaint is much more than 28 days. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in allowing the application. 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the complainant had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11446 CRL.P No. 103133 of 2023 Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the complaint was originally filed in time before the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari on 14.06.2017 and registered as PCR No.327/2017. Before the said Court, a prayer was made on behalf of the complainant to permit it to withdraw the complaint for want of jurisdiction and to present the same before the competent Court. Accordingly, the complaint was returned to the respondent with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Jurisdictional Court on 01.08.2017. It appears that, the respondent had thereafter re-presented the complaint before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate on 31.08.2017. 6. In the affidavit which is filed on behalf of the respondent-complainant seeking condonation of delay of 28 days caused in presenting the complaint before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate, it is stated that the certified copy of the order passed in PCR No.327 of 2017, reserving liberty to the complainant to present the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11446 CRL.P No. 103133 of 2023 complaint before the jurisdictional Court was received by the respondent-complainant only on 02.08.2017 and it is under these circumstances, the time taken to obtain the certified copy of the order was sought to be exempted. From the date of receipt of certified copy of the order i.e., 02.08.2017, within 28 days the complaint was re- presented before the jurisdictional Court and the said delay has been condoned by the jurisdictional Court, which has now taken cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order. The application seeking condonation of delay was filed subsequent to the complaint being re-presented before Jurisdictional Court and it is under these circumstances, the same is dated 12th October 2007. However, the fact remains that the complaint was re- presented before the Jurisdictional Court on 31.08.2017 itself and not on 12th October 2017 as sought to be contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11446 CRL.P No. 103133 of 2023 Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly dispose of Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VMB upto para 3 VNP from Para 4 CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 33