- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 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. 14332 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: VIJAYENDRA BABU, S/O RAMAKRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O 138, 2ND STAGE, 1ST BLOCK, H-CROSS, NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE-560072 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.E08, UNIWORTH TRANQUIL ROW HOUSE, DODDABELE ROAD, NEAR KENGERI METRO STATION, BANGALORE-560060 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NISHA TIWARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. C HEMANTH KUMAR NO.45, NAL LAYOUT , JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 041 2. M/S SPECTRA LAMPS PVT LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NO.16A, SOMANAHALLI INDL. AREA MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571429 THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. R/W ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14/10/202 (ANNEXURE-S2) PASSED BY Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 THIS HONBLE COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2022 ARISING OUT OF CC NO. 31986 OF 2009, TO THE EXTENT IT SENTENCES THE PETITIONER TO A FINE OF RS. 2,00,000/- (RS. TWO CRORES ONLY), HOLDING HIM VICARIOUSLY LIABLE UNDER SECTION 141 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT FOR THE CONVICTION OF R1 COMPANY UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NI ACT OWING TO THE DISHONOR OF CHEQUE OF RS. 1,60,000/- (RUPEES ONE CRORE SIXTY LAKHS) ISSUED BY THE COMPANY. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.2 in CC No.31986/2009 on the file of the learned 22nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and being the respondent No.2 in the Criminal Appeal No.422/2015 before this Court is seeking to quash / set aside the judgment dated 14.10.2022, allowing the Criminal Appeal, convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 2. Heard Sri. Nisha Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jagadish Baliga N., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1, 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?" 4. My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was arrayed as accused No.2 before the Trial Court and respondent No.2 before this Court in criminal appeal. Even though the Trial Court has acquitted the accused in the appeal preferred by respondent No.1, the Court has set-aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and proceeded to convict accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, which is called in question before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even though this Court is not sitting in appeal against the judgment allowing the appeal, convicting and sentencing the petitioner herein and even though the Hon'ble Apex Court has already dismissed the Special Review petition preferred, challenging the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner is advised to file and maintain this petition in the interest of justice. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had not passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by hearing the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as accused No.2. But the fact remains that both accused Nos.1 and 2 who are arrayed as respondents in Criminal Appeal No.422/2015 were represented by their Advocate and the court has heard him at length before proceeding to allow the appeal. 8. Even though the said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, by preferring the Special Leave Appeal (Criminal) No.11205/2022, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2022. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by this Court in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 Criminal Appeal No.422/2015 has reached finality. Under such circumstances, being the co-ordinate Bench, this Court cannot sit in appeal to consider the validity of judgment and the order of sentence. 9. It is the contention of petitioner that the petitioner was not working as a Director under accused No.1 and therefore, he was not liable for conviction. Such contention was never raised by the petitioner when Criminal Appeal No.422/2015 was pending before this Court. Moreover, the petitioner as respondent No.2 in the appeal had filed an application under Section 362 R/w Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking correction of clerical errors. It is contented in the said application that accused No.1 - Company was not represented either before the Trial Court or before this Court and therefore, Section 305 of Cr.PC has not been complied with. 10. The other grounds were also raised by the learned counsel who was representing respondent No.2 in the Criminal Appeal and addressed his argument in support of IA No.1/2023. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering such arguments, rejected the application by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 categorically holding that there was no error that was committed while passing the judgment. The conviction was recorded in accordance with Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court has also observed that the accused had preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court, challenging the judgment dated 14.10.2022, which came to be dismissed. Under such circumstances, IA No. 1/2023 filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 23.06.2023. 11. Admittedly, the said order was never challenged by the petitioner. But again an attempt was made by filing the writ petition seeking to quash the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by preferring this writ petition. I do not find any justification for the petitioner to file and maintain the writ petition seeking to quash the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in an appeal on any ground when the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to interfere with the said judgment. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after disposal of the criminal appeal by this Court and dismissal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 of the special Leave appeal by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there was an agreement between the parties and the said agreement is dated 25.11.2023. The copy of the agreement is produced as per Annexure - Y. Interestingly, the petitioner herein who contends that he was not the Director, nor he was representing accused No.1 - Company is the signatory to the agreement representing the Company. There is no reasonable explanation by the learned counsel for the appellant as to why the petitioner has entered into an agreement with the respondent, if he is not the Director and was not representing accused No.1-Company. The petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold by contending that he represented accused No.1 before the Trial Court during trial, before this Court in the Criminal Appeal and also in the agreement relied on by him and produced as per Annexure - Y and at the same time contend that he is not the Director and not representing accused No.1. 13. As per the agreement dated 25.11.2023, the petitioner had paid Rs.10 lakhs to the respondent and agreed to pay Rs.1.90 crores within 175 days. Admittedly, this condition imposed in the agreement was never complied by the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to comply with the conditions mentioned in the agreement and he never paid any amount pursuant to the same. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that in lieu of the agreement entered into between the parties, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by this Court in the Criminal Appeal is liable to be quashed. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the moment the parties enter into an agreement, irrespective of the fact as to whether the petitioner has complied with the conditions mentioned in the agreement or not, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be quashed, asking the respondent to seek enforcement of the agreement, cannot be accepted even for a moment. 15. Admittedly, this agreement produced as per Annexure - Y was never produced either before this Court or before the Hon'ble Apex Court when the matters were pending for consideration. When the terms of agreement was never complied even according to the petitioner, he cannot take - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 advantage of such agreement of to seek quashing of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Filing of the writ petition is in clear abuse of process of law, for which the petitioner is responsible. The petitioner cannot hoodwink the Court by filing the writ petition and seeking the relief which is beyond the scope of Section 482 of Cr.PC or Article 227 of Constitution of India. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in SMT. LAKSHMIBAI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA And Others1 where the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court considered the question as to whether the compromise arrived at between the parties post conviction can be taken into consideration exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and held it in the affirmative to close the proceedings despite conviction. 17. The Court placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH2 where it is held that when there is a 1 Crl.P.No.7649/2022 dated 16.06.2022 2 2021 SCC Online 834 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2771 WP No. 14332 of 2024 settlement between the parties, the same can be accepted and the proceedings can be obliterated by the court under petition under Section 482 CrPC. But the same cannot be stretched to say that the proceedings may be quashed post conviction, when admittedly the petitioner has not bothered to comply with the terms of the compromise. If the contention taken by the petitioner is to be accepted, respondent No.2 who is successful before this Court in the Criminal Appeal will be compelled to accept the agreement which was never acted upon by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this petition. 18. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10