- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9861 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9824 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) IN CRL.P No. 9861/2025 : BETWEEN: SRI LALITH KOCHAR S/O. SRI.JAWAHARLAL KOCHAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NO.24, SUMATI NIVAS, SINDHI COLONY, 1ST CROSS, J.C.ROAD, 2ND CROSS, BEHIND HDFC BANK NO.55, J.C.ROAD BRANCH, BANGALORE-560002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI S/O.SRI.BABULAL BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NO.55, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 K.R.ROAD, FLAT NO.102, ASCENT VEDA APARTMENT, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SAMIT PARVATIKAR., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 IN C.C.NO.19190/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XIII ACJM, AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT. IN CRL.P NO. 9824/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI LALITH KOCHAR S/O. SRI.JAWAHARLAL KOCHAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NO.24, SUMATI NIVAS, SINDHI COLONY, 1ST CROSS, J.C.ROAD, 2ND CROSS, BEHIND HDFC BANK NO.55, J.C.ROAD BRANCH, BANGALORE-560002. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 AND: 1. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI S/O.SRI.BABULAL BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NO.55, K.R.ROAD, FLAT NO.102, ASCENT VEDA APARTMENT, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. 2. SRI.RAVINDRA KOTHARI, S/O.SHANTILAL KOTHARI, AGED MAJOR, D-105, ETA STAR THE GARDENS APARTMENT, BINNIPETE, MAGADI ROAD, K.P.AGRAHAR, NEAR LEPROSY HOSPITAL, BANGALORE-560023. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHWATH S PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S.528 BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN C.C.NO.13379/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XIII ACJM AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF N.I. ACT. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner/accused No.1 is before the Court calling in question the entire proceedings in C.C.No.19190/2024 and C.C.No.13379/2024, pending before the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the 'NI Act', for short). 2. Heard Sri. Raghavendra K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases, Sri. Samit Parvatikar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Crl.P.No.9861/2025 and Sri. Shashwath S. Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Crl.P.No.9824/2025. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioner is accused No.1 in both the criminal cases. Accused No.2 and the complainant enter into a transaction, in furtherance of which, accused No.2 issues two cheques in favour of the complainant. The cheques, when presented, were dishonoured on the score of stoppage of payment. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 complainant causes a notice to the petitioner/accused No.1. In the notice, it is the contention of the complainant that all the averments are against the present petitioner/accused No.1 and that the petitioner and accused No.2 are cohorts in crime. The notice did not merit any reply from any of the accused. Therefore, the complainant approaches the concerned Court by invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. by filing private complaints. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and issues summons to the two accused. The present petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court on the score that accused No.2 has issued the cheques in his individual capacity, and that the petitioner has nothing to do with the transaction between the complainant and accused No.2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant would seek to reiterate the contents of the complaint in contending that all the allegations are against accused No.1, but the only fact that he has not signed the cheques should not lead to allowing of the petitions since these are seriously disputed questions of fact. Therefore, the trial is a must in the case at hand. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 6. The afore-narrated transaction between the parties is a matter of record. The cheques are appended to the petition. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not the signatory to the cheques. The accused No.2 in his individual capacity has issued a cheque of Rs.20 lakhs (in Crl.P.No.9861/2025) and a cheque of Rs.19 lakhs (in Crl.P.No.9824/2025), to the complainant. The said instruments are the subject matter before the concerned Court. 7. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner not being a signatory to the cheques, and the petitioner also not being a part of any partnership firm or company for issuing a cheque, it becomes an individual transaction between accused No.2 and the complainant. Therefore, drawing the petitioner as accused No.1 would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 case of ALKA KHANDU AVHAD v. AMAR SYAMPRASAD MISHRA1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length, considered material on record and also considered the averments and allegations in the complaint. It emerges from the record that the dishonoured cheque was issued by original Accused 1 husband of the appellant. It was drawn from the bank account of original Accused 1. The dishonoured cheque was signed by original Accused 1. Therefore, the dishonoured cheque was signed by original Accused 1 and it was drawn on the bank account of original Accused 1. The appellant herein-original Accused 2 is neither the signatory to the cheque nor the dishonoured cheque was drawn from her bank account. That the account in question was not a joint account. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it is required to be considered whether the appellant herein-original Accused 2 can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act? 9. On a fair reading of Section 138 of the NI Act, before a person can be prosecuted, the following conditions are required to be satisfied: 9.1. That the cheque is drawn by a person and on an account maintained by him with a banker. 9.2. For the payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. 9.3. The said cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. 1(2021) 4 SCC 675 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 10. Therefore, a person who is the signatory to the cheque and the cheque is drawn by that person on an account maintained by him and the cheque has been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability and the said cheque has been returned by the bank unpaid, such person can be said to have committed an offence. Section 138 of the NI Act does not speak about the joint liability. Even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him, cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. A person might have been jointly liable to pay the debt, but if such a person who might have been liable to pay the debt jointly, cannot be prosecuted unless the bank account is jointly maintained and that he was a signatory to the cheque. 11. Now, so far as the case on behalf of the original complainant that the appellant herein-original Accused 2 can be convicted with the aid of Section 141 of the NI Act is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. 12. Section 141 of the NI Act is relating to the offence by companies and it cannot be made applicable to the individuals. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant has submitted that “company” means any body corporate and includes, a firm or other association of individuals and therefore in case of a joint liability of two or more persons it will fall within “other association of individuals” and therefore with the aid of Section 141 of the NI Act, the appellant who is jointly liable to pay the debt, can be prosecuted. The aforesaid cannot be accepted. Two private individuals cannot be said to be “other association of individuals”. Therefore, there is no question of invoking Section 141 of the NI Act against the appellant, as the liability is the individual liability (may be a joint liabilities), but cannot be said to be the offence committed by a company or by it corporate or firm or other associations of individuals. The appellant herein is neither a Director nor a partner in any firm who has issued the cheque. Therefore, even the appellant cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 141 of the NI Act. Therefore, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 the High Court has committed a grave error in not quashing the complaint against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act. The criminal complaint filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act, therefore, can be said to be abuse of process of law and therefore the same is required to be quashed and set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in terms of the afore-quoted judgment holds that a non-signatory to the cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 8. In that light, further proceedings qua the petitioner are necessary to be obliterated. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.19190/2024 and C.C.No.13379/2024, pending on the file of XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.1. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6680 CRL.P No. 9861 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 9824 of 2025 (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order will not bind or influence the concerned Court qua any other accused in the crime. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25