Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 62039 (KAR)

MS. SUJATA SHRISHAIL TATARANI v. KITUR RANI CHANNAMMA URBAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LTD

CRL.P/102567/2024 · 2025-07-31

S Vishwajith Shetty

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9501 CRL.P No. 102567 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102567 OF 2024 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MS. SUJATA SHRISHAIL TATARANI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: BHANASHREE NILAYA, WARD NO.15, AMINAGAD, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN-587 112. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: KITUR RANI CHANNAMMA URBAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LTD., HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS RECOVERY ASSISTANT, SHRI PRAVEEN BHIMAJI ASWALE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE WITH SAHAKARI, R/O: A/P NERLI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591 309. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETHA K.M., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.363/2024 (ARISING OUT OF P.C. NO.344/2024) AT ANNEXURE-F PENDING BEFORE JMFC VII COURT, BELAGAVI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.02 11:44:57 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9501 CRL.P No. 102567 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. The petitioner, who is accused in C.C. No.363 of 2024 pending before the Court of JMFC-VII Court, Belagavi, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act arising out of P.C. No.344 of 2024 is before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner herein allegedly had borrowed a sum of ₹.75,00,000/- from the respondent-Society and towards repayment of the loan amount due, the petitioner allegedly had issued a cheque for a sum of ₹.72,40,203/- bearing No.054226, dated 19.04.2024 drawn on Karnataka Vikas Gramina Bank, Hungund Branch in favour of the respondent-Society. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation for realisation and it is under these circumstances, after complying the statutory requirements, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9501 CRL.P No. 102567 of 2024 the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the cheque was dishonoured with a bankers’ shara “no such account”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not a defaulter and therefore there was no necessity for her to issue the cheque in question to the Society. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has borrowed a term loan of ₹.75,00,000/- from the respondent-Bank on 03.09.2020 and according to the respondent-Society, the petitioner was overdue to pay the loan amount, and therefore, towards repayment of the loan - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9501 CRL.P No. 102567 of 2024 amount, the cheque in question for a sum of ₹.72,40,203/- was issued. 7. The petitioner has not disputed the signature on the cheque in question. The grounds urged in support of the prayer made in petition, are the available defences for the petitioner, which are required to be raised by him before the trial Court in support of his defence and on the said grounds, the proceedings, which has been initiated against the petitioner for the alleged offence cannot be quashed, more so when the transaction of the petitioner with the Society is proved by documentary evidence and the signature found on the cheque in question is not in dispute. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VNP / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52