- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6900 CRL.P No. 104150 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104150 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SANJEEVRADDI S/O. BABURAO BALULAD @ BALLOLAD, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, R/O: RENUKA NILAYA, BELAVADI BUILDING, OPP. ITI COLLEGE, MICHIGEN COMPOUND, SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD – 580 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE) AND: BABURAO S/O. VENKAPPA BALULAD, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO.05, SIDDARAMESHWAR NAGAR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 313. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND FURTHER QUASH ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATD 02.11.2022 AND REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED IN CC NO.4058/2022 (PCR NO. 926/2022) UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JMFC DHARWAD, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6900 CRL.P No. 104150 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the order of cognizance dated 02.11.2022 and registration of criminal case against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.4058/2022 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘138 of N.I. Act’, for short) pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad. 2. The respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act in P.C.No.926/2022. The learned Magistrate has recorded sworn statement and taken cognizance by order dated 02.11.2022 and ordered to register a criminal case. The said order of cognizance and registration of criminal case has been challenged in the present petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6900 CRL.P No. 104150 of 2022 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned counsel for respondent/complainant. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the settlement between petitioner and respondent has been recorded in RFA No.100093/2021 and their settlement is for Rs.30,00,000/- and that settlement amount of Rs.30,00,000/- has been paid to the respondent/complainant out of the amount in deposit in LAC No.750/2020 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamakhandi. When entire settlement amount is paid, nothing is due by the petitioner/accused to the respondent/complainant. The contention of the respondent/complainant that the settlement is for Rs.60,00,000/- and out of that, Rs.30,00,000/- has to be shown in the compromise petition and balance of Rs.30,00,000/- will be an internal arrangement is not based on any document and therefore, there is no legally enforceable liability. When there is no legally enforceable - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6900 CRL.P No. 104150 of 2022 liability, the proceedings for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act does not stand. On this ground, he prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance and proceedings of the criminal case against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that in paragraph No.5 of the complaint, it is specifically averred that the settlement is for Rs.60,00,000/- and only Rs.30,00,000/- will be shown in compromise petition and balance Rs.30,00,000/- will be an internal arrangement which will be paid by the accused to the complainant before elders. He further submits that the names of those elders are stated in paragraph No.5 of complaint and whether the said settlement has actually took place between petitioner and respondent in the presence of the said elders named is a matter of trial. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the materials placed on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6900 CRL.P No. 104150 of 2022 7. The petitioner is the son of the respondent. There was a land acquisition proceeding and the claim regarding compensation was pending in RFA No.100093/2021 before this Court. The said Regular First Appeal came to be disposed off in terms of settlement dated 15.12.2021. As per the said settlement, the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.30,00,000/- to the respondent and that amount of Rs.30,00,000/- has to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent out of the total amount of compensation deposited in LAC No.750/2020. In terms of the said settlement, a joint memo was also filed in LAC No.750/2020 by the petitioner and respondent. As per the said joint memo, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- has been released in favour of respondent out of the amount of compensation in deposit. It is the contention of the petitioner/accused that the said settlement has been acted upon and the amount settled has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent and there is nothing due to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. On that basis, he contends that there is no - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6900 CRL.P No. 104150 of 2022 legally recoverable liability. For considering the same, it is relevant to consider paragraph No.5 of the complaint filed by the respondent which reads thus: “5. That during the pendency of the RFA No.100093/2021 (DEC/INJ) before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka the elders of Complainant and Accused family made an attempt to settle the matter amicably as both were father and son duo. It was agreed in the presence of the elders namely 1) Shri. S. D. Hosamani Advocate, Hubballi 2) Shri. S.S. Patil Advocate, Dharwad 3) S.I. Chikkur Retired CAO Mudhol and 4) Shri. I. C. Math, Jamkhandi. That out of the total compensation amount the Accused shall pay Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) to the complainant and on the request of accused itself it was proposed and agreed that, out of Rs.60,00,000/-, Rs.30,00,000/- will be shown in the compromise petition and the balance Rs.30,00,000/- will be an internal arrangement which will be paid by the accused to the complainant before the above named elders.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6900 CRL.P No. 104150 of 2022 8. In the said averment of the complaint contained in paragraph No.5, it is stated that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner/accused shall pay Rs.60,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant and on the request of accused itself, it was proposed and agreed that out of Rs.60,00,000/-, 30,00,000/- will be shown in the compromise petition and balance of Rs.30,00,000/- will be an internal arrangement which will be paid by the accused to the complainant before the named elders. The names of four elders have been stated in paragraph No.5 of the complaint. In paragraph No.7 of the complaint, it is stated that out of that balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, the petitioner has paid Rs.15,00,000/- by cash to the respondent/complainant in the presence of elders on 04.07.2022 and has issued cheque for Rs.15,00,000/- dated 04.07.2022 drawn on State Bank of India, Dharwad Main Branch in favour of respondent/complainant. Even though, the settled amount between the petitioner and respondent is Rs.30,00,000/- as recorded in RFA No.100093/2021, but as contained in paragraph No.5 of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6900 CRL.P No. 104150 of 2022 complaint, the settlement was for Rs.60,00,000/- and it took place in the presence of four elders named in paragraph No.5. Whether the said settlement is only for Rs.30,00,000/- or it is for Rs.60,00,000/- in the presence of four elders named in paragraph No.5 is a matter of trial. The respondent/complainant in order to establish that there is a legally recoverable liability, has to prove the averments made in paragraph No.5 of the complaint. In the absence of proof of paragraph No.5 of the complaint, the proceedings initiated by respondent/complainant cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as it requires evidence to be adduced by the parties. Therefore, the order of cognizance and initiation of proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed as prayed. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30