- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15743 WP No. 8037 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8037 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR.CHETHAN KUMAR S.N. S/O NANJUNDACHAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.34 AND 35, 2ND CROSS, 14TH MAIN ROAD, MALAGALA, BANGALORE-560091. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. B.RAMESHAN S/O BABU RAO ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, SIRI RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS ROAD, PAPANNA LAYOUT, PAPANAHALLI ROAD, VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI, BANGALORE-560032. 2. MR. SRIRAM S/O B. RAMESHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, SIRI RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS ROAD, PAPANNA LAYOUT, PAPANAHALLI ROAD, VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI, BANGALORE-560032. 3. MR. PREETHAM P SORTHUR S/O PRAHLAD M SORTUR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15743 WP No. 8037 of 2021 R/O NO.51, 1ST CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR, N.R.SHRUSTI PUBLIC THAVAREKERE, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-562130. 4. STATE BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE DULY REPRESENTED BY HIGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL CASES PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER (a) C.C.NO.16/2018 INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT, PENDING ON THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES JUDGE (SCCH-22) AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-Y; (b) CC.NO.51479/2018 INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT, PENDING ON THE COURT OF 58TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-Z; (c) CC.NO.514772018 INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT, PENDING ON THE COURT OF 58TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL AT BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-AA AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15743 WP No. 8037 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings initiated against him by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in C.C No.16/2018 pending before the Court of Small Causes Judge (SCCH-22), Bengaluru, C.C No.51479/2018 and C.C No.51477/2018 pending before the 58th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Mayo Hall, Bengaluru or to transfer PCR No.9598/2017 on the file of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to be tried along with C.C No.16/2018, CC No. 51479/2018 and C.C No.51477/2018. 2. The respondents No.1, 2, 3 herein had initiated proceedings to prosecute the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court after recording the sworn statements of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 took cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and registered C.C Nos.16/2018, 51479/2018 and 51477/2018. In the meanwhile, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15743 WP No. 8037 of 2021 the petitioner herein had filed PCR No.9598/2017 alleging commission of offences by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 under Sections 323, 324, 388, 448, 449, 452, 504, 506 of IPC. The said private complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The jurisdictional police after investigating the offence, filed a B report. The petitioner filed a protest memo against accepting the B report. It is at that stage, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the prosecution launched against him by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 or in the alternative directing to transfer PCR No.9598/2017 to be tried along with the criminal cases filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. 3. (i) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the defence that the petitioner would be taking up in proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I Act is nothing but the allegations made in his private complaint in PCR No.9598/2017. He therefore submits that in order to avoid conflicting view, it is appropriate that both the cases are transferred to one Court. Besides this, he contends that in order to take a holistic view of the defence by the Court, it would be in the best interest of all concerned that all the cases - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15743 WP No. 8037 of 2021 are dealt with by one Court as it is a case and counter case arising out of the same transaction. (ii). In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: i) Pareshbhai Amrutlal Patel v. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2020) 12 SCC 569; (ii) C.C.Wilson v. Rajan Chambayil House and another reported in (2023 SCC Online Ker 5844); (iii) Sudhir and others v. State of M.P reported in (2001) 2 SCC 688 and (iv) Nathi Lal and others v. State of U.P and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 145. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 submits that the private complaint lodged by the petitioner was referred for investigation and the police after investigating have filed a B report. He submits that the protest memo filed by the petitioner is yet to be accepted and the cognizance is yet to be taken and therefore, it is not appropriate for this Court to direct both the cases to be clubbed or to be tied together. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15743 WP No. 8037 of 2021 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. 6. There can be no quarrel regarding the settled position of law that when a case and counter case is filed, it should be dealt with by the same Court so as to avoid conflicting views. In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed that the cheques in question were forcibly taken away from his custody and that there was no intention to draw those cheques towards repayment of any due. He therefore submits that the private complaint filed by the petitioner ought to be clubbed along with the private complaints filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. 7. It is seen from the records produced along with the writ petition as well as from the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the protest memo filed by the petitioner is yet to be accepted by the Court and the Court has not yet taken cognizance of the offence. Therefore, it would be too preposterous at this stage to hold - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15743 WP No. 8037 of 2021 that the allegations made in the private complaint filed by the petitioner has any bearing on the private complaint lodged by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. 8. In that view of the matter, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner by quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 or by clubbing the private complaint lodged by the petitioner with the cases filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 which are pending. However, it is made clear that if the protest memo filed by the petitioner to the B report in PCR 9598/2017 is accepted by the Court and the Court takes cognizance, it would be open for the petitioner to file appropriate petition for transfer. In that event, the Court would consider the same in accordance with law. 9. Before parting from the case, it is noted that the case filed by the respondent No. 1 is pending consideration before the Court of Small Causes Judge, SCCH-22 at Bengaluru, while the case filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 are pending consideration before the 58th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. Therefore, it is appropriate that all the three cases are transferred to one - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15743 WP No. 8037 of 2021 Court. Accordingly, C.C No.16/2018, presently pending before the Court of Small Causes Judge, SCCH-22 at Bengaluru is ordered to be transferred to the 58th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall at Bangalore to be taken up together. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5