- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3499 CRL.P No. 3030 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3030 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SHADAKSHARI P.G S/O LATE RAMAPPA P.G AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESS MAN R/AT DOOR NO.30 LIG, 60 FEET ROAD, 9TH CROSS NEAR SRI ANJENEYA SWAMY TEMPLE OLD HUDCO, VINOBANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NYAMATHI POLICE STATION HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217 REPRESENTED BY HIGH BUILDING S.P.P. BANGALORE - 01. 2. D A RAVISHANKAR S/O SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT AMMA NILAYA DODDERI VILLAGE, CHILURU POST HONNALI TALUK - 577 217 DAVANAGARE DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA .R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)) Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3499 CRL.P No. 3030 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.348/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, HONNALI, DAVANAGERE AND THE FIR FILED AGAINST HIM IN CR.NO.183/2014 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 408, 420 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner being the accused in Crime No.183 of 2014 of Nyamathi Police Station, pending in CC No.348 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Honnali, Davanagere, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 of IPC, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Heard Sri Guruprasad Hegde, learned counsel for Sri S V Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt R Sowmya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. No representation. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, he has not addressed his arguments. Hence, his arguments is taken as NIL. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3499 CRL.P No. 3030 of 2019 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 is a businessman, who is owning a petrol bunk and running Educational Institution. The petitioner was serving under respondent No.2 and resigned from the job on 31.03.2012. In the meantime, the petitioner had lent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the wife of respondent No.2. Towards repayment of the said amount, the wife of respondent No.2 had issued cheque in question dated 12.06.2014. The cheque was presented for encashment, but it was dishonoured as there was insufficient funds in the account. The petitioner had sent legal notice on 20.06.2014. The wife of respondent No.2 sent a reply on 28.06.2014, for the first time contending that the cheque in question was stolen by the petitioner. Since the cheque amount was not paid, the petitioner had filed the private complaint against the wife of respondent No.2 on 16.07.2014 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The said complaint was registered in the criminal case and after contest, the wife of respondent No.2 was convicted by the Trial Court on 05.11.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is only during - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3499 CRL.P No. 3030 of 2019 pendency of the criminal proceedings against the wife of respondent No.2, respondent No.2 had filed the first information on 25.08.2014. 4. Learned counsel contended that the Trial Court while convicting the accused, referred to the defence taken by her that the cheque in question was stolen by the petitioner and gave a finding that the said defence cannot be accepted. 5. Learned counsel also contended that during the course of cross examination of the accused, who is none other than the wife of respondent No.2, she has deposed that several cheques were stolen by the petitioner, but she was not aware of the details. She has not chosen to file the complaint, but respondent No.2 filed the complaint alleging that only one cheque leaf was stolen. All these facts and circumstances disclose that only to have defence in the criminal proceedings initiated against his wife, respondent No.2 filed the first information and therefore, prays for quashing the criminal proceedings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3499 CRL.P No. 3030 of 2019 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 fairly conceded that there was inordinate delay in filing the first information by respondent No.2. The same was filed after issuance of legal notice by the petitioner to his wife. However, she states that final report is filed by the Investigating Officer and now the matter is pending before the Trial Court. Hence, prays for passing appropriate order. 7. 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 in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 8. Respondent No.2 is the complainant, who is admittedly a businessman. He is said to have been running petrol bunk and also Educational Institution. The petitioner who was working under respondent No.2 has left the job during March 2012. It is the contention of petitioner that, the wife of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3499 CRL.P No. 3030 of 2019 respondent No.2 had availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and to repay the same, she had issued cheque in question on 12.06.2014. On presentation, the cheque came to be dishonored. Legal notice was issued. Wife of respondent No.2 had sent her reply. Thereafter, private complaint came to be filed by the petitioner against the wife of respondent No.2 on 16.07.2014 . It is thereafter, the present complaint came to be filed on 25.08.2014 by respondent No.2 and not by his wife. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, even though the wife of respondent No.2 has taken a defence before the Trial Court that the cheque in question was stolen by the petitioner, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the wife of respondent No.2 has committed the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and she was convicted. 10. In the backdrop of these admitted facts, I have considered the contention taken by respondent No.2. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The same is to be considered as the fact reveals that filing of the complaint was only after receipt of legal notice by the petitioner alleging commission of offence punishable under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3499 CRL.P No. 3030 of 2019 Section 138 of NI Act and registration of private complaint. I do not find any prima facie materials to accept the contention of respondent No.2 that the cheque leaf in question was stolen by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.183 of 2014 of Nyamathi Police Station, pending in CC No.348 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Honnali, Davanagere, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 of IPC, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH/BGN CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1