IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.243 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

K.R.Sudhir,

S/o K.N.Ramaswamy

Aged about 42 years,

No.230, 6^th Cross,

Talakaveri Layout,

Amruthahalli,

Bengaluru-560092.

&Petitioner

(By Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Senior Counsel, for

Sri M.S.Raghavendra Prasad, Advocate)

AND:

K.S.Suresh Raju

S/o K.Sundara Raju,

Aged about 50 years,

No.2562/9B, 2^nd Cross,

V.V.Mohalla, Mysuru-570002.

Also at Flat No.65,

New No.31, K N Serenity

Ground Floor, 12^th Main,

3^rd Block, Jayanagar East,

Bengaluru-560011.

&Respondent

(By Sri K.A.Kamath, Senior Counsel for

Sri Anand Muttalli, Advocate)

R

:: 2 ::

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the criminal proceedings

initiated under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. with Section

138 of the Negotiable instruments Act registered as

C.C.No.2669/2017 presently pending adjudication on

the file of the Learned VIII Additional I Civil Judge

and JMFC, Mysuru against the petitioner.

This Criminal Petition having been heard and

reserved

on

16.11.2021,

coming

on

for

pronouncement this day, the court pronounced the

following:

ORDER

The

petitioner

being

an

accused

in

C.C.2669/2017 on the file of VIII Additional I Civil

Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, has sought to quash the

proceedings initiated under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. The legal point

involved in this petition is,

Whether

the

dishonour

of

two

cheques issued by the petitioner to the

respondent in relation to paying balance

of sale consideration which the latter

cannot recover on account of expiry of

limitation period gives rise to a cause of

action for initiating criminal action under

:: 3 ::

section

138

of

the

Negotiable

Instruments Act?

2.

The

necessary

facts

are

that

the

petitioner bought a commercial property bearing

No.1/5, 1/5B, 1/5C and 1/5D measuring 1 acre 20

guntas

situated

in

Paduvarahalli

Extension,

Devaraja Mohalla, Mysuru, under a sale deed

dated 15.12.2011 from the respondent, his wife

and two minor children Kumari Lakshmi S @

Shreya and Kumari Bindiya @ Spursha. The total

sale consideration was Rs.4,57,38,000/-. On the

date of execution of sale deed, he made payment

of Rs.40,00,000/- and issued four cheques for the

balance. The respondent did not present the

cheques before the bank for encashment on the

request of the petitioner as the latter could not

arrange

for

funds.

It

is

stated

that

on

20.12.2016,

the

petitioner

executed

a

Memorandum of Understanding acknowledging the

execution

of

the

sale

deed

and

payment

of

:: 4 ::

Rs.40,00,000/- and then issued two cheques to the

respondent for the balance that he was due under

the

sale

deed.

Those

two

cheques,

on

presentation to the bank, were dishonoured for

insufficiency of funds in the bank account of the

petitioner.

Consequent

to

dishonour,

the

respondent got issued a legal notice to the

petitioner.

The

petitioner

received

it

on

28.2.2017. It is stated that since there were some

typographical

errors

in

the

legal

notice,

the

respondent

issued

a

corrigendum

notice

on

14.3.2017. The petitioner having failed to reply

and comply with the demand, the respondent

initiated a proceeding against the petitioner by

filing a complaint which was registered as PCR

1812/2017

and

later

on

converted

into

C.C.2669/2017. This is the proceeding which the

petitioner seeks to quash.

:: 5 ::

3.

Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior

counsel for the petitioner has raised a legal issue

for quashing the proceedings. His argument is

that the cheques in question are said to have been

issued in connection with a sale transaction that

took place in the year 2011. In the complaint, it is

clearly stated that the sale deed was executed on

15.