- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34723 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9502 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. SARALAKUMARI W/O LATE MANJUNATH B AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NEAR AVALAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.V. PINTO, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O PUJARI MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO. 347, AVALAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.26569/2022 ON THE FILE OF IN THE COURT ACJM RURAL COURT, AT BANGALORE RURAL BENGALURU BY ORDER DATED 19.11.2022 Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34723 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2023 AS AND ALSO PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER TO TAKE COGNIZANCE AND PROCEED WITH THE MATTER FOR OFFENCE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. 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 is before the Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.26569/2022 registered for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Heard Sri. B.V. Pinto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. R. Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is the accused, the respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered. The two have a transaction. In furtherance of the transaction, it transpires that the petitioner had issued certain cheques in favour of the complainant, which get dishonoured. The dishonour on the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34723 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2023 cheque is complained off by the complainant before the concerned Court, which is now pending as C.C.No.26569/2022. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the time-barred debt is projected before the concerned Court by initiating the proceedings and therefore, the proceedings must be interdicted or obliterated. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the trial is at its fag end, as it is four years, it has begun now and would submit that all the matters which the petitioner has projected in the case at hand would be in the realm of evidence and therefore, the petition should not be entertained. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. The transaction between the two is for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/. Cheque is admittedly issued by the petitioner and the signature on the cheque is not disputed. With these two factors being in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34723 CRL.P No. 9502 of 2023 place, whether it is time-barred debt or legally recoverable debt or otherwise would be a matter of evidence. 8. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the matter is at the fag end of its trial. At this stage, there is no warrant of interference in an exercise of jurisdiction under Section 418 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. All contentions shall remain open to be urged by the petitioner before the concerned Court. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26