- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36745 CRL.P No. 10895 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10895 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MRS. DIVYA PRIYA G., W/O MR. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.34, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PWD MAIN ROAD, B. NARAYANAPURA, DOORAVANINAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOKA T., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. HAZARATH REDDY, S/O MR. DASS REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 863, B H REDDY BUILDING, SRI BABA TEMPLE ROAD, A. NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560016. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LD. XIV ACJM, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.52924/2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36745 CRL.P No. 10895 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused assailing the order of the learned Magistrate calling upon the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount by exercising jurisdiction under Section 143(A) of NI Act. The said order is under challenge. 2. The petitioner’s counsel referring to the grounds has vehemently argued and contended that the transaction itself is seriously disputed by the petitioner – accused and therefore, the invocation of Section 143A of NI Act by the learned Magistrate has clearly lead to miscarriage of justice. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the learned Judge has not at all applied his mind to examine whether the ingredients of Section 143A of NI Act are attracted in the case on hand. Citing Hon’ble Apex Court Judgments, it is contended that the order calling upon the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36745 CRL.P No. 10895 of 2025 amount, at this juncture, violates the principles of natural justice and undermines the petitioner’s right to fair trial. If this order is not set-aside, the petitioner, who is now subjected to proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act, will be subjected to additional financial burden at the pre-conviction stage. Therefore, he would contend that the indulgence of this Court is warranted. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant referring to the order impugned would point out that there is complete laxness on the part of the petitioner–accused in not diligently prosecuting the proceedings before the Trial Court. While justifying the order impugned, it has contended that the learned Magistrate has of course adverted to all significant details while imposing conditional deposit of 20% under Section 143A. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on record and perused the order under challenge. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36745 CRL.P No. 10895 of 2025 6. This Court has also adverted to the order sheet. On perusal of the records, it is forthcoming that the petitioner is clearly found to be indulged in protracting the proceedings pending under Section 138 of NI Act, when the amount covered under the cheque is to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/-. The petitioner has remained continuously absent and is found to be not diligent in contesting the petition. The matter was referred to Lok-Adalath. The petitioner has appeared before the Lok-Adalath and has sought five months time to clear the debt. 7. In view of the settlement before the Lok-Adalath, what remains to be examined is as to whether the petitioner having failed to cross-examine the respondent during the previous five occasions is justified in seeking indulgence at the hands of this Court and the fact that the examination chief was recorded and the respondent - Complainant sworn statement was recorded on 02.03.2024 and since then, the petitioner is found to delaying the proceedings by not cross-examining the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36745 CRL.P No. 10895 of 2025 complainant under Section 143A of NI Act. This behavior of the petitioner clearly empowers the learned Magistrate from granting interim compensation in deserving cases. Having noticed the statement made by the petitioner before the Lok-Adalath and the fact that the petitioner is unnecessarily seeking adjournments, this is not a fit case, where this Court can exercise the scope of judicial review. The Court below has rightly exercised its discretion calling upon the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount. The order calling upon the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount does not suffer from any illegality, which would warrant interference at the hands of this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33