- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37881 CRL.P No. 1038 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1038 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA RICE INDUSTRIES PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI T S SIDDALINGAPPA, S/O T K SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO 09, P K 10, 2ND PHASE, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANTHARASANAHALLI, TUMAKURU-572103 2. SRI. T S SIDDALINGAPPA S/O T K SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PARTNER, SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA RICE INDUSTRIES, R/AT PLOT NO 09, P K 10, 2ND PHASE, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANTHARASANAHALLI, TUMAKURU-572103 3. SMT.MANGALAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, PARTNER, SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA RICE INDUSTRIES, R/AT PLOT NO 09, P K 10, 2ND PHASE, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANTHARASANAHALLI, TUMAKURU-572103 Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37881 CRL.P No. 1038 of 2021 RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS SRI.T S SIDDALINGAPPA, S/O T K SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PARTNER, SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA RICE INDUSTRIES, SIDDALINGESHWARA NILAYA, BALAJI RAO STREET, AGRAHARA, TUMKUR-572103 SMT MANGALAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, PARTNER, SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA RICE INDUSTRIES, SIDDALINGESHWARA NILAYA, BALAJI RAO STREET, AGRAHARA, TUMKUR-572103 SHOP ADDRESS SRI.T S SIDDALINGAPPA, S/O T K SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PARTNER, SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA RICE INDUSTRIES, 7TH MAIN ROAD, APMC YARD, BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572103 SMT MANGALAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, PARTNER, SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA RICE INDUSTRIES, 7TH MAIN ROAD, APMC YARD, BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572103 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.HARI.S S/O SRI. M V V SATYA NARAYANA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37881 CRL.P No. 1038 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PROP: SRI LAKSHMI BALAJI TRADING COMPANY, NO 1076, APMC YARD, D BLOCK, DAVANAGERE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.GOPALA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1265/2020 (OLD NO.1807/2016) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 AND 142 OF N.I ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1265/2020 (old No.1807/2016), on the file of II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of N.I. Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37881 CRL.P No. 1038 of 2021 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the order taking cognizance by the trial Court is against facts and circumstances of the case and oppose to law. The trial Court has failed to consider the facts and material available on record. The petitioners have not issued the cheques to respondent towards repayment of any legal recoverable debt or liability. No transaction has taken place between the parties. The alleged transaction is barred by limitation. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court and hence the petition. 3. On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent would submit that accused No.1 is a partnership firm, accused Nos.2 and 3 and one T.K.Shivanna are its partners. Accused No.2 T.S. Siddalingappa is the authorized signatory of accused No.1 firm as represented to the complainant. All the partners are incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of accused No.1 firm. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37881 CRL.P No. 1038 of 2021 3.1 Since accused persons were in need of paddy for the rice industry business, through accused No.2 they approached complainant to sell paddy on credit basis and that payment would be made within short time. Accordingly, accused have purchased 6042.69 quintals of paddy for a total sum of Rs.85,30,829.59 ps. in between 29.05.2009 to 27.06.2009. They have made certain payments, but due in a sum of Rs.30,20,829.59 ps. Towards repayment of the same, they issued 5 cheques. When presented they were dishonoured. Complainant got issued legal notice. Notice sent to accused No.2 is duly served. The one sent to T.K.Shivanna were returned with endorsement that he has expired. Notice sent to accused No.3 Mangalamma is returned with endorsement 'Party not in station'. Despite knowledge of dishonour and issue of legal notice, the accused persons have failed to pay the amount due and without any alternative complaint is filed. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners and pray to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37881 CRL.P No. 1038 of 2021 4. Heard arguments and perused the record. 5. Thus, petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 3 are seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them, contending that no transaction has taken between them and the cheques were not issued towards any legally debt or liability and the alleged transaction is barred by limitation. 6. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 is partnership firm of which accused Nos.1 and 2 are the partners. It is also not in dispute that the cheques in question are drawn on the account of accused No.1 firm and they bear the signature of petitioner No.2 being the authorized signatory. It is the specific case of the respondent No.2 that he has supplied paddy for a total sum of Rs.85,30,829.59 ps. and out of the same, petitioners are still due in a sum of Rs.30,20,829.59 ps. and towards repayment of it, the cheques in question were issued. On presentation they were dishonoured. When in response to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37881 CRL.P No. 1038 of 2021 the notice, petitioners failed to repay the amount due, complaint is filed. 7. Thus, the allegations made in the complaint by respondent No.2 are disputed by the petitioners. In the light of the fact that petitioner No.1 is the firm, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are its partners and the cheques drawn on the account of petitioner No.1 firm are dishonoured, it is for the trial Court to decide the dispute in a full fledged trial. Disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioners claim that the transaction is barred by limitation. Admittedly, the cheques are not dishonoured on the ground that they were presented beyond the period of their validity. It appears the cheques were not dated when they were issued by the petitioners. Therefore, the burden is on the petitioners to prove the same at the trial. In fact suit filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners for recovery of the amount due under the cheques is decreed by the trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37881 CRL.P No. 1038 of 2021 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30