- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:878 WP No. 8491 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 8491 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. ANILA A.N., S/O. SRI. NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS STATE NODAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT, KARNATAKA ROAD SAFETY AUTHORITY, M.S.I.L. BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARDHAN SHENOY .K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRITHVEESH M K.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. ANIL KUMAR S. GOWDA, S/O LATE SHIVEGOWDA, MAJOR, WORKING AS STATE NODAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT KARNATAKA ROAD SAFETY AUTHORITY, 7TH FLOOR, M.S.I.L. BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. AMBIKA .M., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:878 WP No. 8491 of 2022 KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA IN PCR.NO.41/2021 RE-NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.3372/2021 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the accused in C.C.No.337/2021 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pet, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the N.I. Act'), is seeking to quash the complaint dated 28.05.2021 registered in PCR.No.41/2021 and also the order dated 06.11.2021 passed by the Trial Court treating the case as summons case. 2. Heard Sri.Vardhan Shenoy, learned counsel for Prithveesh M.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Ambika M., learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:878 WP No. 8491 of 2022 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is 'Partly in the Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is arraigned as accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, filed on the basis of the private complaint in PCR No.41/2021 filed by respondent No.2 before the Trial Court. It is the further contention of the petitioner is that, he is the resident of Bengaluru and the private complaint was filed before the Trial Court at K.R.Pet, Mandya. But the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.PC. 5. On perusal of the order dated 06.11.2021, it discloses that the affidavit filed by the respondent herein is treated as sworn statement. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked and taking into - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:878 WP No. 8491 of 2022 consideration the facts deposed by the respondent, cognizance was taken, directing the office to register the criminal case for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 6. Under Section 202 of Cr.PC, the learned Magistrate is required to postpone issuance of process against the accused when he is residing at a place beyond the area on which he exercises his jurisdiction to hold an enquiry into the case either himself or to direct an investigation made by the police officer and to proceed further if he satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings. 7. In the present case, since the offence alleged is under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the learned Magistrate accepted the sworn statement in the form of the affidavit, got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and referring to the oral and documentary evidence, took cognizance of the offence to register the criminal case and to issue process to the petitioner. Thereby the requirement of holding an enquiry is satisfied by the Trial Court. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the order passed by the Trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:878 WP No. 8491 of 2022 Court, treating the case as a summons case in view of the decision rendered in Indian Banks Association and Ors. V/s Union of India and Anr.1 and to treat the sworn statement of the complainant as his examination-in-chief. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that by passing such an order, the Trial Court has treated the case as summons case without assigning any reason and therefore, the Trial Court was not right in passing such an order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Trial Court is required to hold a summary enquiry. He has filed the memo to the effect that the petitioner is ready to face summary trial without insisting for lengthy cross-examination of the complainant. He has specifically submitted before the Court that it is sufficient for the Trial Court to record the gist of evidence stated by the witness and the Trial Court can follow the procedure, as contemplated for a summary case. The memo, which reads as under: "The petitioner has challenged the conversion of the trial before the learned Trial Court from a 'Summary Trial' to a 'summons trial'. The petitioner is ready to face a summary trial, without insisting or recording detailed 1 2014 5 SCC 590 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:878 WP No. 8491 of 2022 evidence, subject to all defence available to the petitioner during the course of trial. Therefore, the memo may be taken on record to meet the ends of justice." The memo and the submission are placed on record. 10. In view of the above, the order directing the case to be tried as 'summons trial' is required to be set aside, directing the Trial Court to proceed with summary trial, in accordance with law. Accordingly, I answer the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part; (ii) The portion of the order dated 06.11.2021 directing to try the case as summons trial is set aside; (iii) The Trial Court is directed to hold a summary trial against the petitioner, in accordance with law. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS