Karnataka High Court
Sri Anuradha Earth Movers Brigade Tech ... vs M/S Mats Fuel Park on 24 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22226
CRL.P No. 8349 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8349 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI ANURADHA EARTH MOVERS BRIGADE TECH GARDENS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. N. V. BABU REDDYY
S/O SRI. VENUGOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.448, BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
NEAR DOODANEKKUNDI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAHUL P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S MATS FUEL PARK,
BROOK FIELDS, KUNDALAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
Digitally signed
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
by CHANDANA SRI. K.C.V MADHUKAR,
BM S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka
(BY SRI. RAMESH BABU R., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2023
AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.60848/2023, ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.59329/2023, ON THE
FILE OF THE 34th A.C.M.M COURT, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22226
CRL.P No. 8349 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"i) To set aside the order dated 20.11.2023 and to
quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.60848/2023
arising out of PCR No.59329/2023 on the file of the
34th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Bengaluru.
ii) To call for entire records pertaining to
C.C.No.60848/2023 on the file of the 34th Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.
iii) To pass such orders as it deems fit by this Hon'ble
Court in the said facts and circumstances for the
above case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
respondent had filed the instant complaint in PCR No.59329/2023
dated 26.10.2023 against the petitioner-accused for the alleged
offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The
petitioner-accused having entered appearance in the said
proceedings has filed the instant petition, inter alia contending that
the complaint itself is not maintainable, since the claim of the
complainant was based on a time barred debt. It is also contended
NC: 2025:KHC:22226
HC-KAR
that the petitioner has not received statutory notice and the
impugned notice deserves to be quashed on this ground also.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
complainant submits that in the light of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the cases of K. Hymavathi Vs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr. - 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1128 and Atamjit Singh
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 99, the
issue regarding debt or liability being time barred is a mixed
question of law and fact, which has to be decided only after a full
fledged trial and not in a proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
It is also submitted that even the issue as regards the petitioner
having been served with statutory notice or not would also have to
be decided only after a full fledged trial, since the same involves
mixed question of law and fact.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
5. In the case of Atamjit Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
(supra), the Apex Court held as under:
"1. Leave granted.
NC: 2025:KHC:22226
HC-KAR
2. This is an appeal instituted at the instance of the
original complainant of a complaint lodged under inter alia
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the "NI
Act") (the "Underlying Complaint") assailing an order dated
06.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi (the "High
Court") in CRL. M.C. No. 556 of 2019 whereunder the High
Court quashed an order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate -10, South-East, Saket Court (the
"Trial Court") summoning Mr. Amrit Sandhu
Coaster/Respondent No. 2 in relation to the commission of
an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act (the "Impugned
Order").
3. The High Court by way of the Impugned Order
deemed it appropriate to quash the underlying proceedings
on the principal premise that as on the date of the issuance
of the summoning order, the underlying debt and/or liability
qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred.
4. Prima-facie from the materials placed before us, it is
revealed that pursuant to various transactions entered into by
and between the (i) Appellant; (ii) Respondent No. 2; and (iii)
Jasween Sandhu i.e., Accused No. 2 in the Underlying
Complaint, allegedly pertaining to year 2011, the Appellant
was owed a sum of approximately Rs. 20,10,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Lakh Ten Thousand). Accordingly Respondent No. 2
issued a cheque bearing number 329623 dated 06.03.2017
drawn on Syndicate Bank, Branch West Punjabi Bagh,
Central Market, New Delhi-110026 for a sum of Rs.
20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) in favour of the appellant
(the "Subject Cheque").
NC: 2025:KHC:22226
HC-KAR
5. Upon a perusal of the Impugned Judgment, it is
disclosed that High Court has relied upon (i) the Assured
Returns Agreement dated 16.09.2011; and (ii) other receipts
issued by the Appellant to Respondent No. 2, all of which
pertain to transaction(s) entered into in the year 2011 to
conclude that in the absence of an acknowledgment of any
underlying debt between 2011 and the date of issuance of
the Subject Cheque i.e., 06.03.2017, the underlying debt
could not be held to be legally enforceable debt or liability on
account of being barred by limitation. Accordingly, in the
aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution of Respondent No.
2 under Section 138 of the NI Act was held to be improper;
and accordingly, by way of impugned judgment, the High
Court quashed the summoning order issued by the Trial
Court; and the Underlying Complaint.
6. At the threshold, it would be apposite to refer to
decisions of this Court in Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha,
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1760-1761 of 2022 whereunder this
Court has opined on the scope of interference by the High
Court in proceedings under 138 of the NI Act qua an
allegedly time barred debt at the stage of issuance of
summons, whilst exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the "CrPC"). The
operative paragraph in Yogesh Jain (Supra) has been
reproduced as under:
"8. Once a cheque is issued and upon getting
dishonoured a statutory notice is issued, it is for the
Accused to dislodge the legal presumption available
Under Sections 118 and 139 reply of the N.I. Act.
Whether the cheque in question had been issued
for a time barred debt or not, itself prima facie, is a
NC: 2025:KHC:22226
HC-KAR
matter of evidence and could not have been
adjudicated in an application filed by the Accused
Under Section 482 of the CrPC."
7. From a perusal of legal position enunciated above,
it is clear that the classification of the underlying debt or
liability as being barred by limitation is a question that must
be decided based on the evidence adduced by the parties.
We agree with aforesaid opinion. Undoubtedly, the question
regarding the time barred nature of an underlying debt or
liability in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is a
mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be decided
by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the CrPC.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the
Impugned Order is set aside. The proceedings emanating
from the Underlying Complaint i.e., CC No. 6437 of 2017 is
restored to the file of the Trial Court.
9. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No
order as to costs."
6. It is also relevant to state that the issue regarding
receipt/service of notice on the petitioner would also require to be
decided only after a full fledged trial and not in the present petition
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, though
several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of
their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the
NC: 2025:KHC:22226
HC-KAR
merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and
appropriate to dismiss the petition reserving liberty in favour of both
parties to urge all contentions before the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty
is reserved in favour of both sides to urge all contentions before the
Trial Court. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are
kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
