SRI. ULLAS. R vs SRI. VINODA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58080
CRL.P No. 13778 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010642202025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13778 OF 2025

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. ULLAS. R
S/O RAJANNA SR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/ AT 20, NEAR CARMEL SCHOOL
MUNNESHWARA BADAVANE
HEGGANAHALLI
BANGALORE 560091

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMESH H N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. VINODA
W/O SRINIVAS
TH
R/AT HOUSE NO 46, 7 CROSS
MUNESHWARA LAYOUT
HEGGANAHALLI,
BANGALORE 560091

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C P.,ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 06.03.2021 PASSED
BY THE HONBLE COURT OF XX ACMM, BANGALORE THEREBY
ISSUING SUMMONS AS A ACCUSED IN CC NO.9842/2021 BY ORDER
DATED 15.04.2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
THEREON AND ETC.











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58080
CRL.P No. 13778 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010642202025




THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Call for the relevant records.

b. Set aside the order of cognizance dated 06.03.2021
passed by the Honble Court of XX ACMM, Bangalore
thereby issuing summons as a Accused in Cc
No.9842/2021 by order dated 15.04.2021 for the
offence p/u/s 138 of NI act and consequently quash
the entire proceedings pending thereon.


2. The respondent had filed a private complaint in PCR
No.4664 of 2021 for offences under Section 200 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the
cheque issued by the accused therein had been
dishonoured with endorsement “payment stopped by
Drawer”. It is challenging the said complaint, that the
petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid
reliefs.

3. The submissions of Sri. Hanumesh H.N., learned
counsel for the petitioner, are threefold.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58080
CRL.P No. 13778 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010642202025



3.1. Firstly, learned counsel submits that, even
before the cheque was presented for
encashment, the petitioner had issued a notice
dated 14.09.2020 calling upon the respondent
not to present the cheque, contending that it
had been obtained from the petitioner under
coercion and through the forceful conduct of
the police.

3.2. Secondly, he contends that the notice issued by
the petitioner does not specifically refer to the
cheque in question or set out its particulars.

3.3. Thirdly, learned counsel submits that no legally
enforceable debt or liability is due from the
petitioner, since, even according to the
respondent, the agreement of sale was entered
into with the petitioner’s father. Therefore, if
any amount is due under the said transaction,
the liability, if at all, would be that of the
petitioner’s father and not that of the
petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the material on record.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58080
CRL.P No. 13778 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010642202025



5. A perusal of the notice dated 14.09.2020 discloses
that the petitioner had specifically contended therein
that an undated, uncrossed and unfilled cheque
bearing No.761316, drawn on the State Bank of
India, for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, had been issued
by the petitioner. Thus, the contention that the
notice does not refer to the cheque in question
requires consideration in the context of the
particulars expressly set out therein.

6. The issuance of the cheque is admitted by the
petitioner. The petitioner’s contention is that the
cheque was neither issued towards discharge of any
liability nor intended to serve as security, but was
obtained under coercion and through the forceful
conduct of the police. Whether the cheque was
voluntarily issued, the circumstances in which it
came to be issued, and the purpose for which it was
issued are matters that would require consideration
on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. At
this stage, the petitioner’s assertion of coercion
cannot be accepted as an established fact so as to
warrant interference with the proceedings.

7. The mere issuance of a notice calling upon the
respondent not to present the cheque does not, by
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58080
CRL.P No. 13778 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010642202025


itself, invalidate the cheque or extinguish any legally
enforceable liability that may otherwise exist. If the
issuance of such a notice were, by itself, sufficient to
defeat proceedings arising from the dishonour of a
cheque, a drawer could unilaterally disclaim liability
merely by issuing a prior notice. The legal effect of
the notice must, therefore, be considered along with
the other circumstances of the case and the evidence
that may be adduced.

8. As regards the contention that the liability, if any,
arises out of an agreement of sale entered into with
the petitioner’s father, the fact remains that the
petitioner admits having issued the cheque in
question. However, the mere issuance of a cheque
does not, by itself, conclusively establish that the
petitioner owed the amount covered by it. Whether
the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally
enforceable debt or other liability, and whether the
petitioner is liable for the amount claimed by the
respondent, are matters that must be examined in
accordance with law, having regard to the material
on record and the evidence adduced by the parties.
These questions cannot be conclusively determined
in the petitioner’s favour at this stage merely on the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58080
CRL.P No. 13778 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010642202025


basis of the contention that the underlying
agreement of sale was entered into with her father.

9. Insofar as the contention regarding non-mention of
the cheque particulars in the notice is concerned, the
notice dated 14.09.2020 issued by the Petitioner
itself refers to the cheque by specifying its number,
the bank on which it was drawn and the amount of
Rs.25,00,000/-. In view of these particulars, the
contention that the cheque was not identified in the
notice is not borne out by the material referred to
above. The petitioner’s own admission regarding
issuance of the cheque further supports the
conclusion that the identity of the instrument in
question is not in dispute. Accordingly, no ground for
interference is made out on this count.

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has not made
out sufficient grounds for interference with the
impugned proceedings. The petition is accordingly
dismissed
, reserving liberty to the petitioner to
raise all legally available defences before the learned
Magistrate.

11. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as a final
determination of the disputed questions of fact or of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58080
CRL.P No. 13778 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010642202025


the existence of any legally enforceable debt or
liability, which shall be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with law.

12. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending
IA's does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA
stands dismissed.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru


(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE


SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Verified