- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19428 CRL.P No. 2233 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2233 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. JAGADEESHWARACHAR G S/O. M. GANGADHARACHAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT AJJANAGUI ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, EAR SHADIMAHAL CHOULTRY, CHALLAKERE TOWN AND TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. ALSO HAVING SHOP AT NANDINI JEWELLERS, RAMAKRISHNA COMPLEX, NEHRU CIRCLE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. A. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. ASHWATHACHAR, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, GROUND FLOOR, SRI. CABLE NETWORK, BUILDING, KODIGEHALLI COLONY, 5TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VISHWANEEDOM POST, BANGALORE-560091 …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19428 CRL.P No. 2233 of 2019 THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR.NO.255/2018, C.C.NO.3460/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3460/2018 (PCR No.255/2018) pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth referred to as N.I. Act'). 2. (i) The respondent filed PCR No.255/2018 alleging the commission of an offence by the petitioner punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is the case of the respondent that he had supplied gold ornaments, which totally weighed 700 grams to the petitioner, which was valued at a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The petitioner had promised to pay the value within six months. However, after six months, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19428 CRL.P No. 2233 of 2019 petitioner started pleading his difficulties and loss in business and sought for a one more year to pay the value of the gold ornaments. Later, after follow-up, the petitioner handed over a cheque for a sum of Rs.24,50,000/- drawn on the State Bank of Mysore, CBS Branch, Challakere and assured that the cheque would be honoured. Based on such assurance, the respondent presented the cheque for encashment, which however was dishonored as the payment was stopped by the petitioner. The respondent, therefore issued a notice of demand calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque. The notice issued returned unserved with an endorsement "intimation delivered on 05.03.2018". The respondent thereafter initiated proceedings to prosecute the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. (ii) The Trial Court after recording the sworn statement of the respondent took cognizance and directed registration of a criminal case consequent to which C.C.No.3460/2018 was registered and process was issued. (iii) The petitioner being aggrieved by the same is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19428 CRL.P No. 2233 of 2019 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Police Superintendent, Chitradurga on 26.04.2017 itself stating that the four cheques including the ones which was the subject matter of the private complaint were lost. The petitioner also alleged that it was the respondent who was bound to pay the value of 500 grams of gold ornaments and that he had not paid the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contends that even before the cheque in question was allegedly handed over to the respondent, a complaint was already lodged before the Police Superintendent, Chitradurga. He therefore, contends that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is mischievous and the respondent taking advantage of the fact that he was in possession of the cheque has misused it. He therefore, submits that there is no debt payable by the petitioner to the respondent and hence, there is nothing to show that the cheque was handed over to the respondent towards payment of such debt. Thus, he contends that the prosecution launched against the petitioner being manifestly fraudulent is liable to be terminated. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19428 CRL.P No. 2233 of 2019 4. Notice of this petition is served on the respondent, who has not appeared. 5. A perusal of the private complaint shows that the respondent had supplied gold ornaments to the petitioner, which was valued at a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is also evident that the petitioner had handed over a cheque for a sum of Rs.24,50,000/- to the respondent towards discharge of the legal liability. The respondent has submitted the cheque for encashment but it returned unpaid as the payment was stopped by the petitioner. The respondent had caused a notice of demand, which was not claimed by the petitioner following which, proceedings were initiated by the respondent for prosecuting the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that four cheques were misplaced and that a complaint in that regard was lodged on 26.04.2017, is a defence that the petitioner is entitled to raise in the proceedings before the Trial Court. He certainly cannot approach this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set at nought the prosecution launched by the respondent. This Court also cannot consider the veracity of the claim made by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19428 CRL.P No. 2233 of 2019 petitioner that the cheques were misplaced and that the respondent came in unlawful possession of the cheques. As a matter of fact, in the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the Police Superintendent, Chitradurga, the petitioner mentioned that the respondent was bound to pay the value of 500 grams gold ornaments and that when the petitioner demanded it, the respondent alleged that it was the petitioner, who had to pay the value of the gold ornaments. This therefore, indicates that the petitioner and the respondent are known to each other and that both of them are goldsmiths and are in the business of sale of gold ornaments. Thus, the possibility of exchange of some gold ornaments between the petitioner and the respondent cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to annul or terminate the proceedings initiated by the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Consequently, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18