2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that, the
of N.I. Act as to the dishonour of three cheques bearing
858372 dated 12.11.2008 for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-.
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
accused. In response to summons, accused appeared before
application was filed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. and the same
11.12.2008. On 11.12.2008, accused remained absent.
Exemption application was filed. Same was rejected and NBW
15.01.2009. Thereafter, an advance application was filed to
Court and enlarged on bail. On 15.01.2009 accused remained
absent. Exemption application was filed. Same was rejected
accused. Then, the case was adjourned from time to time. On
issued against the accused/respondents before the Prl. District
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Principal City Civil and Sessions
for disposal in accordance with law.
3. In Crl.R.P.No.25091/2010, the case was referred to
case was posted to 02.11.2010. The learned Sessions Judge
C.C.No.36700/2008 and case was posted to 08.11.2010.
notice to the complainant. On 08.10.2010, learned counsel for
Cr.P.C. and the matter was posted to 12.11.2010. On
4. In Crl.R.P.No.25085/2010, the case was referred to
14.10.2010. Learned Sessions Judge has passed the order to
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
case was posted to 12.11.2010. On 12.11.2010, learned
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:12211
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
