Karnataka High Court
M/S Copsol India Pvt Ltd vs Sri Hussain Mueen Farooq on 27 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12211
CRL.A No. 311 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013
CRL.A No. 312 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 311 OF 2013 (A)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2013 (A)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2013 (A)
IN CRL.A No. 311/2013
BETWEEN:
1. M/S COPSOL INDIA PVT LTD
REP. BY ONE OF THE PARTNER
MR. T.KRISHNA NAIK
S/O THULASI NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/20, GUDDE
ANJANESYASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD
Digitally signed by KOTEKENGERI, BANGALORE.
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court ...APPELLANT
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. HUSSAIN MUEEN FAROOQ
S/O SRI.K.M.HUSSAIN
MAJOR
2. SRI. KHASSIM MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN
S/O LATE MOHAMMA HUSSAIN
MAJOR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12211
CRL.A No. 311 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013
CRL.A No. 312 of 2013
HC-KAR
3. SRI. ABDUL KHADIR JEELANI
S/O SRI. KHASSIM MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN
MAJOR
ALL ARE R/AT NO.47, SHRAVANTHI ETHI ENCLAVE
3RD CROSS, G.M.R.LAYOUT, GEDDALAHALLI
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2010 PASSED BY THE
PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN
CRL.R.P.NO.25091/2010 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISAHBLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF
N.I.ACT.
IN CRL.A NO. 310/2013
BETWEEN:
1. M/S COPSOL INDIA PVT LTD
REP. BY ONE OF THE PARTNER
MR. T.KRISHNA NAIK
S/O THULASI NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/20, GUDDE
ANJANESYASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD
KOTEKENGERI, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. HUSSAIN MUEEN FAROOQ
S/O SRI.K.M.HUSSAIN
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:12211
CRL.A No. 311 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013
CRL.A No. 312 of 2013
HC-KAR
MAJOR
2. SRI. KHASSIM MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN
S/O LATE MOHAMMA HUSSAIN
MAJOR
3. SRI. ABDUL KHADIR JEELANI
S/O SRI. KHASSIM MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN
MAJOR
ALL ARE R/AT NO.47, SHRAVANTHI ETHI ENCLAVE
3RD CROSS, G.M.R.LAYOUT, GEDDALAHALLI
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.BALAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2010 PASSED BY THE
PRL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN
CRL.R.P.NO.25085/2010 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 147 OF
N.I.ACT.
IN CRL.A NO. 312/2013
BETWEEN:
1. M/S COPSOL INDIA PVT LTD
REP. BY ONE OF THE PARTNER
MR. T.KRISHNA NAIK
S/O THULASI NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.19/20, GUDDE
ANJANESYASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:12211
CRL.A No. 311 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013
CRL.A No. 312 of 2013
HC-KAR
KOTEKENGERI, BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. HUSSAIN MUEEN FAROOQ
S/O SRI.K.M.HUSSAIN
MAJOR
2. SRI. KHASSIM MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN
S/O LATE MOHAMMA HUSSAIN
MAJOR
3. SRI. ABDUL KHADIR JEELANI
S/O SRI. KHASSIM MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN
MAJOR
ALL ARE R/AT NO.47, SHRAVANTHI ETHI ENCLAVE
3RD CROSS, G.M.R.LAYOUT, GEDDALAHALLI
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2010 PASSED BY THE
PRL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE IN
CRL.R.P.NO.25097/2010 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 147 OF N.I.ACT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:12211
CRL.A No. 311 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013
CRL.A No. 312 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Since these appeals arise out of the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-III in Crl.R.P.Nos.25091/2010, 25085/2010 and 25097/2010, between same parties, they are disposed of by common judgment.
2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that, the appellant/complainant had filed complaints under Section 138 of N.I. Act as to the dishonour of three cheques bearing Nos.113041 dated 15.04.2008 for a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/-, 990391 dated 15.04.2008 for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and 858372 dated 12.11.2008 for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. When the cheques were presented for encashment, same were dishonoured for insufficient funds. Thereafter, demand notice was issued by the complainant to the accused. However, accused failed to pay the cheque amount. Hence, complainant had filed the complaints under Section 138 of N.I. Act. After filing the complaint, cases were registered in PCR Nos.12161/2008, 1/2009 and 12162/2008 The trial Court took cognizance against the accused in C.C.Nos.36700/2008, -6- NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR 26001/2009 and 36699/2008 and summons were issued to the accused. In response to summons, accused appeared before the trial Court through Sri.DLL advocate and on 10.11.2008 application was filed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed by the trial Court and then case was posted to 11.12.2008. On 11.12.2008, accused remained absent. Exemption application was filed. Same was rejected and NBW was issued against the accused and case was posted to 15.01.2009. Thereafter, an advance application was filed to advance the case and accused had appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. On 15.01.2009 accused remained absent. Exemption application was filed. Same was rejected by the trial Court and then, NBW was issued against the accused. Then, the case was adjourned from time to time. On 02.11.2010, respondents filed Crl.R.P.Nos.25091/2010, 25085/2010 and 25097/2010 challenging the order of process issued against the accused/respondents before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge had made over these cases to Additional Judge, FTC-3 for disposal in accordance with law.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR
3. In Crl.R.P.No.25091/2010, the case was referred to the Additional Judge, sitting in the Court Hall No.FTC-3 and the case was posted to 02.11.2010. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order and stayed the further proceedings in C.C.No.36700/2008 and case was posted to 08.11.2010. Learned Sessions Judge had not passed any order to issue notice to the complainant. On 08.10.2010, learned counsel for the accused filed advance application under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. and the matter was posted to 12.11.2010. On 12.11.2010, learned Sessions Judge passed the following order:
"Heard on S 5of L Act, Respondent submits no objection memo to S5 L Act. Heard IA to condone delay is allowed. Advocate for respondent also filed copy of POA and filed Memo of No objection to allow to R.P. filed by Revision Petitioner: Heard, perused the revision petition. Application U/Sec. 147 also filed. Heard the R/P and the respondent have entered into the compromise and settled the dispute out of Court.
Heard, respondent/complainant is permitted to complaint the offence U/Sec. 147 of NI Act. Heard the order. The application filed under Section 147 of NI Act by R/P/Accused and Respondent/complainant is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.10.2008, in C.C. No.36700/08 is set-aside by allowing the criminal -8- NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR revision petition in terms of the compromise petition under section 147 of NI Act. Consequently the R/P accused is acquitted under section 147 Cr.P.C. intimate lower court accordingly."
4. In Crl.R.P.No.25085/2010, the case was referred to the Additional Judge, No.FTC-III and was posted to 14.10.2010. Learned Sessions Judge has passed the order to issue notice to respondent on I.A.I to hear on limitation and posted the matter 28.10.2010. On 28.10.2010, learned counsel filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. This case was posted to 12.11.2010. On 08.11.2010, case was advanced at the request of learned counsel for the respondent and then case was posted to 12.11.2010. On 12.11.2010, learned Sessions Judge passed the following:
"Heard on S 5of L Act, Respondent submits no objection memo to S5 L Act. Heard IA to condone delay is allowed. Advocate for respondent also filed copy of POA and filed Memo of No objection to allow to R.P. filed by Revision Petitioner:
Heard, perused the revision petition. Application U/Sec. 147 also filed. Heard the R/P and the respondent have entered into the compromise and settled the dispute out of Court.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR Heard, respondent/complainant is permitted to complaint the offence U/Sec. 147 of NI Act. Heard the order. The application filed under Section 147 of NI Act by R/P/Accused and Respondent/complainant is allowed. The impugned order dated 18/12/2008, in C.C. No. 26001/09 is set-aside by allowing criminal revision petition in terms of the compromise petition under section 147 of NI Act. Consequently the R/P accused is acquitted under section 147 Cr.P.C. intimate lower court accordingly."
5. In Crl.R.P.No.25097/2010, the case was referred to the Additional Judge, No.FTC-III and was posted to 08.10.2010. On 08.10.2010, the matter was adjourned to 12.11.2010. On 12.11.2010, the learned Sessions Judge passed the following:
"Advocate NR filed Vakalath for respondent Heard on S Sof L. Act, Respondent submits no objection memo to S5 L Act. Heard IA to condone delay is allowed. Advocate for respondent also filed copy of POA and filed Memo of No objection to allow to R.P. filed by Revision Petitioner:
Heard, perused the revision petition. Application U/Sec. 147 also filed. Heard the R/P and the respondent have entered into the compromise and settled the dispute out of Court.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR Heard, respondent/complainant is permitted to complaint the offence U/Sec. 147 of NI Act. Heard the order. The application filed under Section 147 of NI Act by R/P/Accused and Respondent/complainant is allowed. The impugned order dated 18/12/2008, in C.C. No. 26001/09 is set-aside by allowing the criminal revision petition in terms of the compromise petition under section 147 of NI Act. Consequently the R/P accused is acquitted under section 147 Cr.P.C. intimate lower court accordingly."
6. Being aggrieved by these impugned orders, the complainant/appellant has preferred these appeals.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that revision petition filed before the Fast Track Court-III, Mayo Hall Unit are not at all maintainable. The grounds urged in the revision petition before the Fast Track Court-III are not tenable to entertain the revision petition. There was no procedural defect in taking cognizance by the trial Court. The respondents have appeared before the trial Court and obtained bail. Later respondents/accused instead of contesting the matter before the trial Court have filed criminal revision petitions under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The Fast Track Court-III, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru failed to consider the fact that whether any Court
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR notice was issued or served to the complainant/appellant. The Fast Track Court-III, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru passed the impugned order in view of application filed under Section 147 of N.I. Act. The respondents have played a fraud before the Fast Track Court-III, Mayo Hall, Bangalore by creating General Power of Attorney and on the basis of General Power of Attorney, the criminal revision petitions came to be allowed on 12.11.2010 and the entire proceedings in C.C.Nos.36700/2008, 26001/2009 and 36699/2008 before the XIV ACMM, Bengaluru came to be set aside. Consequently, respondents/accused have been acquitted for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
8. Further, it is submitted that the appellant-company has not executed any General Power of Attorney to Mr.Suresh Babu much less they do not know who Suresh Babu is. Further, the General Power of Attorney is fabricated and concocted by the respondents/accused and forged the signature of the partners of the appellant-company on the GPA and even the original GPA is not produced before the Court. Only colour xerox copy of the GPA is produced before the Court in all
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR criminal revision petitions. On all these grounds, prays to allow the appeals.
9. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Power of Attorney executed by the complainant has not challenged by them till this day. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act. Hence, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge and sought for dismissal of the appeals.
10. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.311/2013, 310/2013 and 312/2013 have made out a ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge?
2. What order?
11. My answer to the above points is:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211
CRL.A No. 311 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013
CRL.A No. 312 of 2013
HC-KAR
12. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. On perusal of the order sheet pertaining to the trial Court, it is crystal clear that the respondents are represented by the advocate and were also physically appeared before the trial Court and enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the accused did not appear before the Court and NBW was issued against them. When NBW was pending, the respondents/accused preferred three Crl.R.P.Nos.25091/2010, 25085/2010 and 25097/2010 before the Sessions Court. In all the three cases, notices were not served to the complainant. Before service of notice to the complainant, the alleged power of attorney holder of the complainant has appeared before the Sessions Court by filing advance application and the cases were advanced. It is submitted that the original power of attorney said to have been executed by the complainant is not produced before the Sessions Court. However, the Sessions Court has allowed the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act in all the three cases i.e., Crl.R.P.Nos.25091/2010, 25085/2010 and 25097/2010.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR
13. In Crl.R.P.Nos.25091/2010 and 25097/2010, an application was filed under Section 147 of NI Act. It is extracted as under:
"The above named respondents in the above case most respectfully submits as follows:
It is submitted that the petitioners and respondents has settled the complaint given by the respondents in out side the Court amicably by taking the words of the well wishers of the both parties.
It is further submitted that the offence which is committed by the petitioners is non compoundable. Hence the respondent is seeking the permission to withdraw the complaint given by the respondent be also acquit the petitioners.
WHEREFORE: It is most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismissed the complaint given by the respondent as not pressed and also by allowing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners in the interest of justice."
14. On the basis of these applications, the trial Court has passed the impugned orders.
15. A perusal of application under Section 147 of N.I. Act, it makes crystal clear that the present complainant has not appeared before Sessions Court. It has not put its signature on
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR the compromise application under Section 147 of NI Act. The Learned Sessions Judge has not passed any order to permit this Special Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Suresh Babu, to appear on behalf of the complainant.
16. After noticing this alleged act of respondents, the present appellant has filed complaint before the XI ACMM, Bengaluru in PCR No.247/2011. The case was referred to concerned police for investigation. After investigation, the I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the accused no.1- Hussain Mueen Farooz, accused No.2-Khassim Mohammad Hussain, accused no.3-Abdul Khadir Jeelani, accused no.4- Suresh Babu, accused no.5-Nagaraj H., accused no.6- Manjunath R., accused no.7-Sudha B., accused no.8-K.Kannan, accused no.9-Syed Abdulla Khazi and accused no.10- Gopalkrishna L. for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 423, 465, 468, 470, 471, 472, 475 read 34 of IPC. In charge sheet at Cl.No.17, it is stated as under:
"F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ CAPÀt 12 gÀ°è £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¹gÀĪÀ J1, J2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J3 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄ||CA¨Á¸ÀqÀgï JdÄPÉõÀ£À¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¥ÁèAiÀiï ªÉÄAmï læ¸ïÖ£À ¤zÉÃð±ÀÀPÀgÄÀ UÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÄÀ ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀA¥À¤UÉ ªÀAa¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR ¢£ÁAPÀ:21/02/2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÄÀ ¥Á®ÄzÁgÀgÁVgÀĪÀ ªÉÄ||PÁ¥Àì¯ï EArAiÀiÁ ¥ÉæöÊ.°. PÀA¥À¤AiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀåªÀºÀj¹ PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÁªÀĸÀªÀÄÄzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è vÀªÄÀ ä læ¸ïÖUÉ ±Á¯Á PÀlÖqÀªÉÇAzÀ£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¹ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ CzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀæwAiÀiÁV ºÀt ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÀ PÀA¥À¤AiÉÆA¢UÉ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvæÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÀgÁj£ÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¤«Äð¹ PÉÆnÖzÄÀ Ý, DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀæwAiÀiÁV 9 PÉÆÃn gÀÆUÀ½UÉ ZÉPÄÀ ÌUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAQUÉ ºÁQzÁUÀ SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀt«®èªÉAzÀÄ ZÉPÄÀ ÌUÀ¼ÄÀ ¨ÁåQ¤AzÀ ªÁ¥À¸ï §A¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ J1, J2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J3 DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀiÁ£Àå 14£Éà J.¹.JA.JA £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ Crl.R.P.No.25085/10, Crl.R.P.No.25091/10, Crl.R.P.No.25097/10 gÀ°è ZÉPï ¨Ë£ïì zÁªÉ ºÀÆrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÄÀ ªÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ UÀ¼ÁzÀ J1, J2, J3, J4, J5, J6, J7, J8, J9 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J10 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀA¥À¤UÉ ªÀAa¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ M¼À¸ÀAZÀ£ÄÀ ß gÀƦ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁådåªÀ£ÄÀ ß §UɺÀj¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ J-4 DgÉÆæUÉ f.¦.J ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÀ ¸À»UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃdðj ªÀiÁr, £ÀPÀ° f.¦.J zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÀȶֹgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ J9 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J10 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÉÆÃlj ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÀȶֹzÀ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß J5, J6, J7 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J8 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁªÀÅ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ºÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÀȵÀÖ£ÉAiÀÄ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃd£ÀÄß £ÉÊdªÁzÀÄzÉAzÀÄ §¼À¹, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÀȶֹzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆæUÀ¼É®ègÆ À ¸ÉÃj ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ C±ÉÆÃPÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À°ègÄÀ ªÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå J¥sï.n.¹ 3£Éà £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹, ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÄÀ J1, J2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J3 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR zÁR°¹zÀÝ ªÁådåªÀ£ÀÄß EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ GzÉÝñÀ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV ªÀAa¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁPÁëöåzsÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J1 jAzÀ J10 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1, 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀA¥À¤UÉ ªÀAa¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ M¼À¸ÀAZÀ£ÀÄß gÀƦ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¸Àȶֹ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÊdªÁzÀªÀÅUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ §¼À¹, ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÄÀ ªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀAZÀ£É J¸ÀV ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®A UÀ¼À£éÀAiÀÄ ²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀs¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ."
17. On perusal of these materials, prima facie it appears that the respondents have played fraud before the Fast Track Court-III, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in Crl.R.P.Nos.25091/2010, 25085/2010 and 25097/2010. Learned Sessions Judge has not verified the General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the complainant in favour of Suresh Babu. The trial Court has not passed any order as to alleged power of attorney holder of the complainant is permitted to enter into compromise on behalf of complainant-company. Learned Sessions Judge has blindly accepted the compromise petition filed under Section 147 of N.I. Act. Hence, the impugned orders are not sustainable under law.
18. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR ORDER
1. The appeals stand allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- in each case.
2. Cost of Rs.5,000/- each shall be payable by respondents to the complainant on or before 26.03.2026.
3. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.Nos.25091/2010, 25085/2010 and 25097/2010 dated 12.11.2010 are set aside.
4. C.C.Nos.36700/2008, 26001/2009 and 36699/2008 on the file of XIV ACMM, Bangalore shall be restored.
5. Both parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.03.2026 without seeking any further notice by the trial Court.
6. If the respondents who are accused before the trial Court fail to appear before the trial Court on 26.03.2026, the trial Court is directed to secure them by issuing non bailable warrant
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR and thereafter the trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.
7. As the matter is of the year 2010, the trial court shall dispose of the case as early as possible.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is not sure whether the trial Court has maintained the records or not. Hence, office is directed to return the certified copies of the impugned orders to the trial Court by retaining the certified copy of the same.
9. Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the trial Court as well as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
10. Prl. District and Sessions Judge is directed to intimate to the Deputy Register and other concerned case workers to secure the records.
11. If the concerned Registrar has failed to secure the records, the PDJ is directed to take
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12211 CRL.A No. 311 of 2013 C/W CRL.A No. 310 of 2013 CRL.A No. 312 of 2013 HC-KAR necessary steps to rebuild the records as per the circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1