- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28301 CRL.P No. 9520 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9520 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SOWMYA GURUVAYURAPPAN, D/O SRI GURUVAYURAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.18, SOWMYASHREE, 12TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, SP EXTN., MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003 …PETITIONER (BY SRI KIRAN B S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K. PARVATHI SRINIVASAN, W/O SRI A SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.26/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560 003. 2. SRI A SRINIVASAN, S/O K ANANTHARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.26/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU-560003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT B, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28301 CRL.P No. 9520 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC TO 1) QUASH THE COGNIZANCE TAKEN AND PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER MALICIOUSLY BY RESPONDENT - COMPLAINANTS OF THE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R. NO.4691/2023, WHICH IS REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.6509/2023 IN THE COURT OF SCCH-06, IV ADDL. SCJ AND ACMM AT BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner - accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.6509/2023, pending before the Court of SCCH-06, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). 2. Heard Sri Kiran B.S., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Raja Subrahmanya Bhat B., learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner - accused No.1 does not have any transaction with the complainant. The transaction pursuant to a joint development agreement, executed between the GPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28301 CRL.P No. 9520 of 2023 holder of the petitioner i.e., her father and the complainant. The cheques are admittedly issued by the father of the petitioner pursuant to the execution of the said GPA by the petitioner, who, at the relevant point in time was residing in Australia. The cheques were dishonoured and dishonouring of the cheques resulted in the complainant instituting proceedings invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and the petitioner then approaches this Court in the subject petition, contending that the petitioner is not the signatory to the cheques as she has entered into a General Power of Attorney with her father and the petitioner has not signed the cheques and the father is facing the prosecution. 4. A coordinate bench of this Court had interdicted the proceedings by granting an interim order of stay on 29.09.2023. The complainant prefers an application seeking vacation of the interim order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds set out in the petition, particularly of the fact that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28301 CRL.P No. 9520 of 2023 petitioner not being a signatory to the cheques. It is at the behest of the complainants that the cheques are issued by accused No.2. The cheques having been dishonored, the signatory to the cheques would become liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial in the proceedings before the concerned Court. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They are in fact, a matter of record. The issue at this juncture lies in a narrow compass, for the reason that the petitioner is not the signatory to the cheques, which is an admitted fact. She had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the father for all transactions, is again an admitted fact. The transaction in the subject lis is with regard to a joint development agreement. Cheques are issued by the father - accused No.2 in favour of the complainants, in furtherance of a particular joint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28301 CRL.P No. 9520 of 2023 development agreement entered into between the parties. Since the petitioner is not a signatory to the cheques and has executed a General Power of Attorney for all the transactions in favour of the father, the petitioner in the considered view of this Court cannot be permitted to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, as a non-signatory to the cheque cannot be drawn into the web of the proceedings, it is by now a well-settled principle of law, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ALKA KHANDU AVHAD V. AMAR SYAMPRASAD MISHRA reported in (2021) 4 SCC 675. The Apex Court has held as follows: “8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length, considered material on record and also considered the averments and allegations in the complaint. It emerges from the record that the dishonoured cheque was issued by original Accused 1 husband of the appellant. It was drawn from the bank account of original Accused 1. The dishonoured cheque was signed by original Accused 1. Therefore, the dishonoured cheque was signed by original Accused 1 and it was drawn on the bank account of original Accused 1. The appellant herein-original Accused 2 is neither the signatory to the cheque nor the dishonoured cheque was drawn from her bank account. That the account in question was not a joint account. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is required to be considered whether the appellant herein-original Accused 2 can be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28301 CRL.P No. 9520 of 2023 prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act? 9. On a fair reading of Section 138 of the NI Act, before a person can be prosecuted, the following conditions are required to be satisfied: 9.1. That the cheque is drawn by a person and on an account maintained by him with a banker. 9.2. For the payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. 9.3. The said cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. 10. Therefore, a person who is the signatory to the cheque and the cheque is drawn by that person on an account maintained by him and the cheque has been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability and the said cheque has been returned by the bank unpaid, such person can be said to have committed an offence. Section 138 of the NI Act does not speak about the joint liability. Even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him, cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. A person might have been jointly liable to pay the debt, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28301 CRL.P No. 9520 of 2023 but if such a person who might have been liable to pay the debt jointly, cannot be prosecuted unless the bank account is jointly maintained and that he was a signatory to the cheque. 11. Now, so far as the case on behalf of the original complainant that the appellant herein- original Accused 2 can be convicted with the aid of Section 141 of the NI Act is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. 12. Section 141 of the NI Act is relating to the offence by companies and it cannot be made applicable to the individuals. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant has submitted that “company” means any body corporate and includes, a firm or other association of individuals and therefore in case of a joint liability of two or more persons it will fall within “other association of individuals” and therefore with the aid of Section 141 of the NI Act, the appellant who is jointly liable to pay the debt, can be prosecuted. The aforesaid cannot be accepted. Two private individuals cannot be said to be “other association of individuals”. Therefore, there is no question of invoking Section 141 of the NI Act against the appellant, as the liability is the individual liability (may be a joint liabilities), but cannot be said to be the offence committed by a company or by it corporate or firm or other associations of individuals. The appellant herein is neither a Director nor a partner in any firm who has issued the cheque. Therefore, even the appellant cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 141 of the NI Act. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in not quashing the complaint - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28301 CRL.P No. 9520 of 2023 against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act. The criminal complaint filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act, therefore, can be said to be abuse of process of law and therefore the same is required to be quashed and set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are pitted to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment, permitting further proceedings to continue would become an abuse of the process of the law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed. b. The proceedings in C.C.No.6509/2023, pending before the Court of SCCH-06, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner, stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 54