- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10235 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2914 OF 2023 IN CRL.P No. 10235/2021 BETWEEN: MR. SANTOSH SIDHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SAMSON R/AT FLAT NO.401, EAST AVE, PERIYAR NAGAR KUMARASWAMY COLONY KORATTUR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 080. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKHILESH B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BINU M, ADVOCATE) AND: MS.ROHINI IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O NOT KNOWN R/AT NO.4092, 4TH WING PRESTIGE SOUTH RIDGE APARTMENT BANASHANKARI 3RD PHASE BANGALORE - 560 085. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PARASHURAM A.L, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023 THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.5730/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL ACMM, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. IN CRL.P NO. 2914/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. SANTHOSH SIDDHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SAMSON, R/AT FLAT NO.401, EAST AVE, PERIYAR NAGAR, KUMARASWAMY COLONY, KORATTUR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 080. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKHILESH B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BINU M, ADVOCATE) AND: MS. ROHINI IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O NOT KNOWN, R/AT NO.4092, 4TH WING, PRESTIGE SOUTH RIDGE APARTMENT, BANASHANKARI, 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 085. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PARASHURAM A.L, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2023, PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 311 OF CR.P.C. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023 IN C.C.NO.5730/2019 ON THE FILE OF XII A.S.C.J. AND A.C.M.M., BENGALURU. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner is challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.5730/2019 pending on the file of XII Additional and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.10235/2021 and the order dated 23.02.2023 passed in an application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'). 2. The respondent has contended that, in pursuance of a legally dischargeable debt, the petitioner issued a cheque in her favour and the same has been dishonoured. Hence, the proceedings have been initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023 1881 (for short, 'the N.I.Act'), which has resulted in filing of C.C.No.5730/2019. 3. In the proceedings, the petitioner herein/accused therein has taken up a contention that the cheque has not been presented to the bank within the time stipulated under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. He has also taken up a contention that the bank statement does not reflect dishonour of the cheque as alleged by the respondent. Hence, he has made an application under Section 311 of Cr.PC, requesting the summoning of the bank manager for his examination to prove whether the cheque was presented to the bank within the time stipulated in accordance with law or not and whether the same has been dishonoured or not. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court. 4. The case of the petitioner is that when the documents do not prima facie show that the cheque has been deposited in the bank within the time stipulated as contemplated under law, the trial Court ought not to have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023 entertained C.C.No.5730/2019 and should have dismissed the same in limine. It is further contended that, even otherwise, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.PC because there is no clarity as to when the cheque was deposited before the bank and whether it was ever dishonoured and only the bank manager can speak as to it. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent justifies the order passed by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of both petitions. 6. It is seen from the complaint that there is a specific averment that the cheque has been deposited in accordance with law within the time stipulated and in the sworn statement also the respondent herein has deposed the same. Based on the pleadings and also copies of the cheque and the memo issued by the bank, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence alleged under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and has registered C.C.No.5730/2019 against the petitioner herein. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023 7. The onus of proving that the cheque was presented to the bank within the time stipulated in accordance with law, that the same has been dishonoured, that the cheque was issued by the petitioner herein towards a legally dischargeable debt, that the notice was issued within the time stipulated and that the complaint was also filed within the time as contemplated in law is on the respondent herein. It is for the respondent to prove her case. If she fails to establish the same in accordance with law, any doubt arising in the mind of the Court will have to enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein. Under the said circumstances, in my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in registering C.C.No.5730/2019 and also rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein. 8. Mere registration of C.C.No.5730/2019 does not imply that the petitioner herein is guilty of the offence alleged. The respondent, who is a complainant before the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41003 CRL.P No. 10235 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 2914 of 2023 trial Court is required to prove her case in accordance with law as observed herein above. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any reason to interfere with the proceedings before the trial Court or the orders made therein. 10. Accordingly, the petitions are hereby dismissed, subject to the aforementioned observations. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK