M/S KUMAR ENTERPRISES vs M/S V S L MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5684 OF 2019


BETWEEN:

1. M/S. KUMAR ENTERPRISES
TH
NO.25, 9 CROSS
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560020
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
R. SHIVAKUMAR.

2. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER
M/S. KUMAR ENTERPRISES
TH
NO.25, 9 CROSS
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560020.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. RACHITHA RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:

M/S. V.S.L. MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
NOW CALLED AS A H L MINING COMPANY
PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT HOUSE OF LADS, PALACE ROAD,
SANDUR 583119.
REPRESENTED BY ITS (ALLEGED)
DIRECTOR SRI ANIL LAD
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE)











Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019



THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN
PCR NO.3113/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NOW PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE IV ADDITIONAL AND XXX
A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER
This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the
private complaint in PCR No.3113/2019 filed by the
respondent; quash the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the
IV Additional and XXX ACMM, Bengaluru taking cognizance
against the petitioners and quash the proceeding in
C.C.No.3471/2019 initiated against the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant while
filing the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C read with
Section 138 of N.I. Act is that accused issued a non-CTS
cheque without maintaining balance in the accused account and
the cheque was dishonoured for the reason non-CTS cheque

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


without balance in the account. The cheque amount is Rs.6
crores and the cheque was also issued towards the discharge of
the existing liability. The complainant in support of his case,
also produced the documents of cheque; endorsement; legal
notice; postal receipts and acknowledgement; and reply notice.
4. Having perused the complaint, affidavit and
documents produced along with the complaint and so also the
documents of Ex.P1 to P8 and sworn statement, the trial court
comes to the conclusion that at this stage prima facie
constitute the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and there
is sufficient material to proceed against the accused. Hence,
cognizance order was passed by the trial court.
5. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the petitioners in this petition is that cheque cannot be
presented to different bank since the cheque belongs to ICICI
Bank and cheque is also dated 20.02.2019. Prior to the
presentation of the cheque, notices are issued i.e., Annexure-G
dated 27.12.2018 and Annexure-H is also very same date and
Annexure-J is dated 29.01.2019. The counsel would
vehemently contend that a non-CTS cheque was presented to
Kotak Bank and the said bank cannot process it. The counsel

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


also brought to notice of this Court the RBI Circular in respect
of CTS and non-CTS cheques are concerned that is only to the
particular bank, it has to be presented. The counsel also
brought to notice of this court that the said cheque was
discontinued and the same was valid till 18.12.2018. The
counsel would contend that there is no valid presentation and
earlier to that, stop payment was given and before presentation
of the cheque, letter was also addressed but in the said letter,
nothing is stated about earlier notice and complaint and
suppressed the same. The counsel would contend that the court
has to take note of the conduct of the respondent/complainant.
6. The counsel in support of his arguments relies upon
the judgment reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 641 in the
case of REKHA SHARAD USHIR vs SAPTASHRUNGI
MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSATA LIMITED
wherein the Apex Court discussed in paragraphs 10 and 11 with
regard to the suppression of material facts and by making a
false statement, cannot seek justice from the court.
7. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported
in (2001) 3 SCC 609 in the case of SHRI ISHAR ALLOY
STEELS LTD. vs JAYASWALA NECO LTD. wherein Section 72

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


of the N.I. Act was discussed that the expression “the bank”
occurring in proviso (a) to Section 138 and its meaning was
discussed with regard to the presentation of the cheque in a
particular bank and brought to notice of this court discussion
made in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10.
8. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported
in (2009) 6 SCC 72 in the case of RAJ KUMAR KHURANA vs
STATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER and brought to
notice of this Court paragraph 11 wherein discussed with
regard to the legal requirements must be complied with before
proceeding.
9. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of this
Court passed in Crl.A.No.1132/2014 decided on
02.02.2024 . The counsel also relies upon judgment of this
Court reported in 2026 SCC ONLINE KAR 865 in the case of
ND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. AND OTHERS vs RITESH
RAUSHAN and brought to notice of this Court the discussion
made in the said judgment.
10. The counsel relies upon the judgment passed in
CRL. OP No.13954/2023 AND CRL MP Nos.8584 AND
8585/2023 dated 28.04.2026 wherein the Madras High Court

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


held that cheque was a non-CTS cheque and as such, it cannot
be honoured and hence, the offence under Section 138 of
N.I.Act is not attracted.
11. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the payment was
made to the tune of Rs.13,05,00,000/-. Though it is contended
by the counsel for the petitioners that the cheque was forcibly
taken but in the letters dated 27.12.2018 and 29.01.2019, the
Annexures which are referred, nowhere stated that the cheque
was forcibly taken and it is only an after thought, the said
defence was taken. There was no allegation of forcibly taken
signature and no complaint was given before the police officers
if he really indulged in such act.
12. The counsel also vehemently contend that when
this court has entertained the petition in Crl.P.No.95/2019
decided on 23.09.2023 in the case of SHIVAKUMAR AND
OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA , the said order was
challenged before the Apex Court in Spl. Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.49247/2024 and the Apex Court vide order
dated 18.08.2025 stayed the impugned order and the same is
not yet disposed of on merits. The counsel also in his

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


arguments would vehemently contend that FAQ on Cheque
clearing is concerned, RBI guidelines is also very clear and
brought to notice of this Court that in terms of the guidelines
No.5 - are non-CTS cheques invalid, categorically held that
though it was discontinued with effect from 31.12.2018, as of
now, non-CTS cheques cannot be presented in CTS. Bank have
been advised to withdraw the non-CTS cheques from the
customers. However, a non-CTS cheque continues to be valid
as a negotiable instrument.
13. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of this
Court in Crl.P.No.4978/2023 decided on 11.07.2023
wherein similar question was raised that there cannot be 138
proceedings. This Court referring the circular of the Reserve
Bank of India held that it holds that non-CTS cheques are valid
as a Negotiable Instrument and clarification by the Reserve
Bank of India, it is clear that however, though they were
discontinued with effect from 31.12.2018, the non-CTS cheques
remain to be valid as a negotiable instrument and dismissed
the petition wherein similar grounds was also urged.
14. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of
Madras High Court passed in CRL. O.P.(MD) No.14999/2024

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


AND CRL.M.P.(MD) Nos.9381 & 9380/2024 dated
11.09.2024 , wherein also in paragraph 4 discussed with
regard to the non-CTS cheque. In paragraph 5 held that non
CTS cheque was issued only to cheat the defacto complainant
when defence was taken. Madras High Court taken note of the
judgment of the State of Haryana and others vs Bhajan Lal
and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and discussed
the scope of 482 of C.P.C and so also taken note of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar vs The state of Maharashtra and others
reported in 2019 (18) SCC 191 wherein discussion was made
with regard to 482 of Cr.P.C is concerned and held that the
same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.
So also, the judgment of the Apex Court in Kaptan Singh vs
the State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (3)
Crimes 247 wherein also held that High Court is not required
to go into the merits of the allegation or enter into the merits of
the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate
jurisdiction and only to take note of the contents of the
complaint and prima facie materials. A similar issue was also
raised in the very same case that Cheque was not returned for
want of sufficient amount and the same was returned only for

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


the reason of ‘non-CTS cheque’ and as such, the question of
invoking Section 138 does not arise at all. In this judgment is
also the very similar issue is involved and dismissed the same.
15. Having considered the contention of the petitioners
counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, no
doubt, that there were notices exchanged prior to the date of
the cheque. Those notices can be made use of by the
petitioners during the course of trial, not at the stage of
considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The other
contention that non-CTS cheque cannot be presented to a
different bank. The same will be considered during the course
of trial not at this stage. The judgment which has been relied
upon by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of SHRI
ISHAR ALLOY STEELS LIMITED referred supra is the
judgment of the year 2001 and no judgment is placed before
this court subsequent to the issuance of the circular issued by
the RBI and the same was not dealt with by any of the court.
But in respect of the non-CTS cheque is concerned, the
coordinate bench of this court considered the similar issue in
Crl. P.No.4978/2023 referred supra wherein the very circular
was taken note of and held that non-CTS cheque remain to be
valid as a negotiable instrument. Though advised to withdraw

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


the non-CTS cheque as per the RBI guidelines, this court
already taken note of the issue of non-CTS cheque and the
Madras High Court has also discussed with regard to the non-
CTS cheque and held that scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C is
very limited and court cannot consider the grounds which have
been urged that notice was already issued and inspite of it,
cheque was presented. All these issues could be raised before
the trial court at the time of considering the matter on merits.
With regard to the presentation of the cheque also, the High
Court cannot embark upon considering the matter on merits
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. When such being the case, I do
not find any force in the contention of the counsel appearing for
the petitioners.
16. The respondent counsel also relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in Spl. Leave Petition (Criminal)
No.49247/2024 wherein stayed the order of this Court
passed in Crl.P.No.95/2019 referred supra. When the petition
was stayed, the same is also pending for consideration. Under
the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to entertain the
petition invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The grounds which
have been urged in the petition could be raised before the trial
court and the same will be a defence and those defence cannot

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 5684 of 2019


be considered by this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and
also cannot conduct a mini-trial while dealing with the matter.
When cognizance was taken by the trial court, considered the
material on record particularly the sworn statement and also
the documents which have been relied upon by the
complainant. Hence, the petitioners have not made out a
ground to entertain this petition.
17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.


Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE






SN