- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1633 CRL.P No. 8676 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8676 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI. SHANKARA GAUD S/O SRI BIMAN GAUD AGED BOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR SHRI GURUKRUPA KRUSHI KENDRA, NEW BUS STAND MAIN ROAD, TALUK DEODURGA RAICHUR - 584 111 RESIDING AT NO 4/2/28/1, SAROJINI ONE, DEODURGA RAICHUR - 584 111 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. PEREGRINE PHOSPHATE (P) LTD REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR MR MADHU KUMAR VARMA S/O SRI VIJAY VARMA RAJ B.M AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.312, B WING, 3RD FLOOR MITTAL TOWER, NO.6, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MR. PAVAN G. PATIL S/O SRI. GANESHRAO PATIL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.12823/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLII A.C.M.M., BENGALURU AT DOCUMENT NO.1. Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1633 CRL.P No. 8676 of 2019 THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the sole accused in CC.No.12823/2019 pending on the file of the learned XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him 2. Heard Sri. Dalwai Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. D Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials on record. 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?" - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1633 CRL.P No. 8676 of 2019 My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent has filed the private complaint in PCR.No.1768/2019 before the Trial Court against the petitioner alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the petitioner, registering CC.No.12823/2019. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. The materials on record discloses that the complainant is being examined as PW.1 and the case before the Trial Court is posted for his cross- examination. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the cheque in question drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad belongs to the petitioner. According to the respondent, the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt and the same was dishonored as account closed. A legal notice was issued by the respondent. These facts are not in dispute. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1633 CRL.P No. 8676 of 2019 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Bank of Hyderabad merged with State Bank of India with effect from 01.04.2017 and MICR cheques of the old Bank was held to be valued till 30.06.2018. In the present case, the respondent presented the cheque dated 15.10.2018 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad. The petitioner has already closed his account with the State Bank of Hyderabad and under such circumstances, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act cannot be made out. 7. The contention raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact and the same is to be determined by the Trial Court after holding full-fledged trial. Prima facie, the cheque dated 15.10.2018 for Rs.6,45,341/- was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent and the same was dishonored as account closed. The legal notice was issued and thereafter, the private complaint came to be filed. Therefore, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the offence under Sections 138, 142 and 143 of NI Act was committed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1633 CRL.P No. 8676 of 2019 8. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, at the best may amount to his defence before the Trial Court, but the same cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings at this stage. This Court cannot hold a mini trial to find out the truth in the averments made in the petition and compare the averments made in the complaint. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30