- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2692 WP No. 31222 of 2019 C/W WP No. 31225 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 31222 OF 2019 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 31225 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S GLOBAL INFONET DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED C-143, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1, NEW DELHI - 110 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. NIZAMUDDIN S/O MR. SH. BUNDU KHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 2. MR. PRASHANT PRAKASH S/O MR. SANTHOSH KUMAR SINHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, CONSULTANT TO M/S GLOBAL INFONET DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LIMITED D-104, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-1, NEW DELHI - 110 020. 3. MR. VIBUVENKATASUBRAMANIAN S/O MR. VENKATASUBRAMANIAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.2A, SECOND FLOOR, OLD NO.63, NEW NO. 123, ORCHARD COURT, PASUMPON MUTHURAMALINGA THEVAR ROAD, R.A. PURAM, CHENNAI - 600 028. …COMMON PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2692 WP No. 31222 of 2019 C/W WP No. 31225 of 2019 AND: M/S IBM INDIA PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SUBRMANYA ARCADE, 12, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029 AND REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGER ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. VENUGOPAL R …COMMON RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RIDHIMA THDONOLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. THOMAS VELLAPALLY, ADVOCATE) WRIT PETITION NO.13222 OF 2019 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF MATTER BEARING PCR NO.50478/2017 RENUMBERED AS CC NO.15462/2018 PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSE AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE. AND ETC., WRIT PETITION NO.13225 OF 2019 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF MATTER BEARING PCR NO.50479/2017 RENUMBERED AS CC NO.15463/2018 PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XVII ADDITIONAL JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSE AND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE. AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2692 WP No. 31222 of 2019 C/W WP No. 31225 of 2019 COMMON ORAL ORDER Since petitioners in both these petitions are one and the same and the facts leading to the petitions are also similar, I propose to dispose off both the petitions through this common order. 2. The petitioners in these petitions being accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC.Nos.15462/2018 and 15463/2019 pending on the file of the learned XVII Additional Judge Court of Small Causes and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). 3. Heard Sri. Bipin Hedge, learned counsel for Smt. Latha S Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Ridhima Thdonoli, learned counsel for Sri. Thomas Vellapally, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2692 WP No. 31222 of 2019 C/W WP No. 31225 of 2019 4. 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 petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 5. Respondent No.2 - complainant has filed the private complaint in PCR Nos.50478 and 50479/2017 against the petitioners arraying them as accused Nos.1 to 3, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is the contention of the respondent that a cheque for Rs.2 crores and two other cheques for Rs.3.54 crores each were issued by the petitioners, whereas they have issued four cheques for Rs.2 crores each towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. When the cheques were presented for encashment, the same were dishonored as 'drawer's signature not as per mandate'. The legal notices were issued by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2692 WP No. 31222 of 2019 C/W WP No. 31225 of 2019 respondent and later two private complaints came to be filed. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and CC.Nos.15462/2018 and 15463/2019 came to be registered. The petitioners being the accused in both these cases are before this Court. 6. Petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is the Private Limited Company, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 - accused Nos.2 and 3 are the CEO and the Director of accused No.1. They have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision in Sri Sai Sapthagiri Sponge PVT Ltd., V.s The State (GNCT of Delhi) and another1, wherein the High Court of Delhi considered the fact of the case where the cheque in question was issued under a memorandum of understanding, according to which, the cheque was issued towards security purpose only. The cheques were insisted for audit purpose for showing to the banker and not for depositing into the Bank. Considering the recitals in the memorandum of understanding 1 Crl.M.C.No.1034/2017 & CM DD 27.10.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2692 WP No. 31222 of 2019 C/W WP No. 31225 of 2019 and other facts of the case, the Court came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 138 of NI Act was made out. 8. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioners that, the cheques in question referred to in the complaint were not issued with an intention to present the same for encashment. He produced copies of the cheques to contend that there is a specific endorsement on the reverse side of the cheques that, "this is security cheque and not to be deposited". Therefore, it is his contention that the cheques were never meant for presentation nor issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt and under such circumstances, no offence under Section 138 of NI Act was committed. 9. The said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. 10. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was an agreement between the parties, he concedes that there is no written agreement between the parties. The contention raised by the petitioner is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the petitioners amounts - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2692 WP No. 31222 of 2019 C/W WP No. 31225 of 2019 to disputed question of fact, which is to be decided by the Trial Court after holding full-fledged trial. Moreover, now the position of law is very well settled that even when a cheque is issued towards security, dishonor of the same will attract Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, the parties have to lead their evidence before the Trial Court in support of their respective claims. Under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot seek quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them. Hence, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15