IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

CRL.P. NO. 101561 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

SMT. K. SUREKHA W/O K. SRINIVAS SETTY

AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, PARTNER OF FIRM,

R/O 8^TH WARD, VENKATESHWAR NILAY,

PARVATHI NAGAR, NEAR CHAGI ADENA HOUSE,

SIRUGUPPA-583121, DISTRICT-BALLARI.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. DAYANAND M BANDI, ADV.)

AND:

A. SANTOSH KUMAR

S/O LATE PANDURANG SETTY

AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,

R/O 18^TH WARD, #24,

SADASHIV NAGAR, BALLARI ROAD,

SIRUGUPPA-583121, DIST:BALLARI.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. R.M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2015 PASSED BY THE

COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRUGUPPA IN CC NO.1104/2015

(PC NO.84/2015) IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

ACT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH

THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CC NO.1104/2015

PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRUGUPPA.

R

2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The prayer in this petition is for quashing of all

further proceedings in CC No.1104/2015 (PC No.84/2015)

on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa

for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 8NI Act9), insofar as the

present petitioner is concerned.

2.

Respondent

before

this

Court

presented

a

private complaint in CC No.1104/2015 before the learned

Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa alleging commission of

offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act against

the present petitioner (Accused No.3), M/s. Surya Rice

Industries (Accused No.1) and Sri. K. Srinivas Setty

(Accused No.2). There is no dispute about the fact that

the petitioner is wife of accused No.2-K. Srinivas Setty.

There is also no dispute that Accused No.1 is a registered

Partnership Firm of which currently the present petitioner

and her husband are partners.

3

3.

The complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was

presented on the footing that the cheque issued on the

account held in a Bank by accused No.1/Partnership Firm

was returned dishonoured and since the cheque was

issued in discharge of legal liability, offence under Section

138 of NI Act has been committed by all accused including

the petitioner herein.

4.

The petitioner herein contends that since she

was a sleeping partner under the terms of the registered

Partnership Deed dated 10.01.2008 and since she was not

responsible for day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm

and also she had not signed the cheque in question, she is

not liable to be prosecuted for offence punishable under

Section 138 of NI Act and therefore, the complaint insofar

as she is concerned is liable to be quashed.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

complainant, per contra, submits that the complaint was

filed on 11.9.2015 and now trial has also been completed

and further, since the matter is now posted for final

4

arguments before the learned trial Court, at this stage,

accused No.3 who is the present petitioner should not be

heard to contend that the complaint against her is not

maintainable. He submits that as per the averments made

in

the

complaint,

the

petitioner

and

her

husband

approached the complainant for supply of rice for their

partnership firm and the complainant having supplied the

rice, the accused having issued the cheque towards

payment of consideration and the said cheque having been

dishonoured, the present petitioner is also equally liable

for prosecution and therefore, the petition filed by her

should be dismissed.

6.

There is no dispute about the fact that the

cheque in question was drawn on the account held by the

partnership firm which is accused No.1 and it was signed

by accused No.2-K.Srin