Reserved on :20.01.2026 Pronounced on :22.01.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.54 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

1 . MUDRA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ’SHREE', DOOR NO.3-W-6-608/4, MANJUNATH COLONY, KADRI, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3.

2 . MR. VASUDEV K., S/O SRINIVAS BHAT., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT 'SHREE'

DOOR NO.3-W-6-608/4, MANJUNATH COLONY, KADRI, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 002.

3 . DEEPA K.S., W/O . VASUDEV K., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 'SHREE'

DOOR NO.3-W-6-608/4, MANJUNATH COLONY, KADRI, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 002.

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.RAVISHANAKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . M/S. AASHIRVAD INFRA DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 4-8-739/26, SHOP NO.3, 1^ST FLOOR, DIVYA ENCLAVE, M.G. ROAD, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. P. KRISHNARAJ MAYYA, S/O LATE KESHAVA MAYYA.

2 . MR. P. KRISHNARAJ MAYYA, S/O LATE KESHAVA MAYYA, AGED ABOURT 54 YEARS, R/AT FLAT 206, MAHARAJA EXCELLENCY, HAT HILL, M.G. CROSS ROAD, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 003.

... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF B.N.S.S. ACT, 2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2025 PASSED IN CRL.RP NO.71/2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners/accused 1 to 3 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 04-12-2025 passed by the III^rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.71 of 2025 rejecting the challenge to the order of taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, V^th Court, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, in terms of his order dated 26-09-2024 and registering C.C.No.1310 of 2024.

2. Heard Sri K. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

3. The skeletal facts are as follows:

The petitioners are the accused and respondents are the complainants. The petitioners are said to have issued a cheque in furtherance of a transaction for ₹10/- lakhs. The cheque is the instrument in the lis. The cheque when presented is returned unpaid on the memorandum that the accused have stopped payment. This leads the complainants to initiate proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short) for offences punishable under Section 138 thereof. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 26-09-2024, registers C.C No.1310 of 2024 after recording the sworn statement of the complainants and taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioners/accused file a criminal revision petition before the Court of Session in Criminal Revision Petition No.71 of 2025, challenging the order of taking cognizance in C.C.No.1310 of 2024. The revisional Court dismisses the said challenge finding no error in the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 04-12-2025. It is therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the learned Magistrate could not have deviated from the procedure prescribed under the BNSS, insofar as issuing notice to the accused, hearing the accused and then taking cognizance of the offence. In the light of it being mandatory and deviation there from, the order of taking cognizance is vitiated, so is the order passed by the revisional Court. He would seek to place reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court and coordinate Benches of this Court, in furtherance of his submission that the procedure cannot be deviated. He would further contend that Section 4 of the BNSS makes