M/S AXISTECH AUTOMATION PVT LTD., vs M/S YASKAWA INDIA PVT LTD.,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57040
CRL.P No. 2732 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010127482026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2732 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. M/S AXISTECH AUTOMATION PVT LTD.,
NO. 513, GROUND FLOOR, KOTTIGEPALYA,
VISHWANEEDAM POST, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560091.
ALSO AT
6, KARIHOBANAHALLI, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
SLV INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560058.
2. MR. SHIVANAND BASAVARAJ,
S/O BASAVARJ,
DIRECTOR M/S AXISTECH AUTOMATION PVT LTD.,
NO 513, GROUND FLOOR, KOTTIGEPALLYA,
VISHWANEEDAM POST, MAGADIMAIN ROAD,
ENGALURU 560091,
ALSO AT
6 KARIHOBANAHALLI, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
SLV INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PEENYA 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU 560058.
3.
MR. NARAYAN JAYARAJU YADUR,
S/O M JAYARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
DIRECTOR, M/S AXISTECH AUTOMATION PVT. LTD,
NO. 513, GROUND FLOOR, KOTTIGEPALYA,
VISHWANEEDAM POST, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560091. ALSO AT
6, KARIHOBANAHALLI, 8TH MAIN ROAD, SLV
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560058.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57040
CRL.P No. 2732 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010127482026
4. MR. PRAKASH GANGANARASAIAH,
S/O GANGANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DIRECTOR, M/S AXISTECH AUTOMATION PVT. LTD,
NO. 513, GROUND FLOOR, KOTTIGEPALYA,
VISHWANEEDAM POST, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560091.
ALSO AT.
6, KARIHOBANAHALLI, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
SLV INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560058.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI DIVYASHREE V,ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S YASKAWA INDIA PVT LTD.,
LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO. 17/A, 2ND MAIN, ELECTRONIC CITY,
PHASE-1, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560100
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
MR. RAJA T S.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRASAD K R RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PADMANABHA HOLLA S.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
1.QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE IN C.C.NO.8551/2022 (ARISING
OUT OF PCR NO.140/2022) PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C DEVANAHALLI FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.IA CT VIDE ANNEUXRE-A AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57040
CRL.P No. 2732 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010127482026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in CC
No.8551/2022 pending on the file of JMFC Devanahalli for the
offences alleged under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act, 1881').
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the complainant in paragraph No.6 of the sworn statement
has referred to certain documents to contend that amount is
due from the accused and the complainant has not produced
those documents.
4. Learned Magistrate without noticing this aspect, has
taken cognizance, as such, the entire proceeding has to be
quashed is the submission.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rekha Sharad
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57040
CRL.P No. 2732 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010127482026
Ushir vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta
1
Ltd .
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant
would submit that the contention raised by the petitioner
cannot be accepted in a petition under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. There is a
presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of
the Act, 1881. Hence, in case there is no liability on the
accused, it is for the accused to demonstrate the same during
the course of trial and the presumption under Section 139 of
Act, 1881.
7. The Court has considered the contentions raised in
the Bar and perused records.
8. In paragraph No.11 of the said judgment the Apex
Court has held as under:
11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing
proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or
makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the
court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant
1
2025 SCC Online SC 641
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57040
CRL.P No. 2732 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010127482026
to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the
decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no
regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing
material facts need to be thrown out of the court. In
paragraph 5 of the decision of this Court in the case of
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Ors.1, it is held
thus:
“5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent
error. The short question before the High Court
was whether in the facts and circumstances of
this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary
decree by playing fraud on the court. The High
Court, however, went haywire and made
observations which are wholly perverse. We do
not agree with the High Court that “there is no
legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to
court with a true case and prove it by true
evidence”. The principle of “finality of litigation”
cannot be pressed to the extent of such an
absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in
the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of
law are meant for imparting justice between
the parties. One who comes to the court, must
come with clean hands. We are constrained to
say that more often than not, process of the
court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-
evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find
the court-process a convenient lever to retain
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57040
CRL.P No. 2732 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010127482026
the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no
hesitation to say that a person, who's case is
based on falsehood, has no right 1 (1994) 1
SCC 1 to approach the court. He can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of the
litigation.” (emphasis added)
9. In the above said case, the Apex Court has noticed
that the accused had issued reply to the notice issued under
Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and then demanded two
documents before presenting the cheque. Said fact was
suppressed. In that situation, the Apex Court has held that the
complaint is not maintainable.
10. However, the facts referred to in this case is
different.
11. In the present case, it is alleged that the notice is
issued and the contention is that the notice is not served.
Whether it is duly served or not is a question of fact which is to
be ascertained at the time of trial.
12. The fact that the cheque which is produced by the
complainant pertains to the petitioner, is not in dispute.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57040
CRL.P No. 2732 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010127482026
13. In case the documents referred to in the complaint
as Exhibit P.4 are not produced by the complainant, the
consequence of non-production of those documents will have to
be considered at the time of trial. At this juncture, the petition
cannot be allowed and the proceeding cannot be quashed.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed .
15. All contentions raised by the petitioner are kept
open.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12