Karnataka High Court
M/S Aishwaryagiri Constructions Pvt. ... vs Mahalakshmi Constructions on 29 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11023
CRL.P No. 101359 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101359 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. AISHWARYAGIRI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
NO.236, 2ND STAGE, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. G. JAYARAMAIAH.
2. SRI. G. JAYARAMAIAH S/O GIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
AISHWARYAGIRI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,
NO.236, 2ND STAGE, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. TANVEER AHMED SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHALAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS,
Digitally
signed by
R/BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR
SRI. IRANNA S/O GATIGEPPA MARADABUDAKIIN,
S Location:
HIGH NO.107, MANJUNATH NILAYA,
HARIHAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
DHARWAD
BENCH VIVEKNANDA NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580 030.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.4765/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE IV ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUBBALLI, AGAINST ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2
FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER
IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11023
CRL.P No. 101359 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
Petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to quash the
entire proceedings in C.C. No.4765 of 2023 pending before the
Court of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, registered
for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
there is no specific allegation against the Managing Director of
the accused No.1 - Company and therefore, in the absence of
specific averments as against the Managing Director in the
complaint, proceedings could not have been initiated against
him.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however has
opposed the prayer made in the petition.
5. The impugned proceedings have been initiated
against the company and its Managing Director, for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11023
HC-KAR
It is not in dispute that the cheuqe in question has been drawn
on the account maintained by the drawee Bank in the name of
the Company, which is arrayed as accused No.1 to the impugned
criminal proceedings. Accused No.2 is the Managing Director of
the said Company, which has issued the cheque in question.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K.
Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora and another1 has observed as follows:
"27. The position under section 141 of the Act can be
summarized thus:
(i) If the accused is the Managing Director or a Joint
Managing Director, it is not necessary to make an averment in
the complaint that he is in charge of, and is responsible to the
company, for the conduct of the business of the company. It is
sufficient if an averment is made that the accused was the
Managing Director or Joint Managing Director at the relevant
time. This is because the prefix `Managing' to the word
`Director' makes it clear that they were in charge of and are
responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of
the company.
(ii) In the case of a director or an officer of the company
who signed the cheque on behalf of the company, there is no
(2009) 10 SCC 48
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11023
HC-KAR
need to make a specific averment that he was in charge of and
was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business
of the company or make any specific allegation about consent,
connivance or negligence. The very fact that the dishonoured
cheque was signed by him on behalf of the company, would give
rise to responsibility under sub-section (2) of Section 141.
(iii) In the case of a Director, Secretary or Manager (as
defined in Sec. 2(24) of the Companies Act) or a person referred
to in clauses (e) and (f) of section 5 of Companies Act, an
averment in the complaint that he was in charge of, and was
responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of
the company is necessary to bring the case under section
141(1). No further averment would be necessary in the
complaint, though some particulars will be desirable. They can
also be made liable under section 141(2) by making necessary
averments relating to consent and connivance or negligence, in
the complaint, to bring the matter under that sub-section.
(iv) Other Officers of a company can not be made liable
under sub-section (1) of section 141. Other officers of a
company can be made liable only under sub-section (2)
of Section 141, be averring in the complaint their position and
duties in the company and their role in regard to the issue and
dishonour of the cheque, disclosing consent, connivance or
negligence.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11023
HC-KAR
7. This Court in the case of Agarwal Coal Corporation
Pvt. Ltd., vs. Benaka Sponge Iron Pvt Ltd. and others2 has
observed as follows:
"7. Section 141 of the N.I. Act provides for
criminal liability for dishonour of cheque committed
by company. In the case of K.K.AHUJA AND
V.K.VORA AND ANOTHER - (2009) 10 SCC 48,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the
judgment of SMS PHARMACEUTICALS V. NEETA
BHALLA & ANR - 2005 (8) SCC 89 has observed
that signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is
clearly responsible for the act and his liability is
covered under Section 141(2) of N.I. Act. Therefore,
no specific averments would be necessary to make
him liable to be prosecuted for offence under Section
138 of N.I. Act. Similarly Managing Director and
Deputy Managing Director by virtue of their office
which they holding would come under Section 141(1)
of N.I. Act even if there is no specific averments
against them. Insofar as the other directors are
concerned there has to be specific averments as
against them in the complaint with regard to their
role and responsibility in the conduct of business of
the company and in the absence of such allegation or
In Crl.P.No.100988/2024 & connected matters disposed of on 19.08.2025
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11023
HC-KAR
averments the other directors cannot be prosecuted
for the alleged offences. In the case on hand,
learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly
submitted that insofar as respondent Nos.4 to 6 are
concerned, who are the other directors, the petitions
are not being pressed. Insofar as respondent No.3 is
concerned, who is the sole signatory of the cheques
in question even in the absence of any specific
allegations or averments against him in the
complaint he is liable to be prosecuted."
8. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in
the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that, in the
absence of specific averments with regard to the role of the
Managing Director of the first accused Company, the impugned
proceedings could not have been initiated against accused Nos.1
and 2.
9. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
RSH / CT:BCK
