THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF B.N.S.S., 2023, PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 IN C.C.NO.44968/2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL CJM BENGALURU CITY, WHEREIN THE COGNIZANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BY ISSUING SUMMONS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT AND AS PER ANNEXURE B; B. TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.44968/2025 TITLED AS SMT.R.G.MANJULA Vs. M/S.VAISHNODEVI FAIRRMONT ESTATE LLP, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXII ACMM, AT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE A AND B; C. QUASH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.02.2026, 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, 2 and 3 are before the Court calling in question entire proceedings in C.C.No.44968 of 2025 registered for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -The 3rd petitioner-Company and the respondent enter into a transaction through a registered sale deed in respect of certain land situated in Heggadagere Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District and in furtherance of the said transaction, the 3rd petitioner issued four post dated cheques for ₹91,65,000/- being a portion of the entire sale consideration of ₹3,89,65,000/-. On 20-06-2025, the cheques that were presented for realization got dishonoured for want sufficient funds. On 17-07-2025, the respondent causes a legal notice and initiates proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. The respondent then, through her Special Power of Attorney holder files P.C.R.No.16785 of 2025 for the aforesaid amount of ₹91,65,000/-. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and registers C.C.No.44968 of 2025. It appears that the respondent, on the same cause of action, in respect of the very same transaction, has filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.5 of 2026 and the same is said to be pending consideration. Taking of cognizance and issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

The learned senior counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the complaint is preferred by a Special Power of Attorney Holder. There is not even a single line in the complaint that the Special Power of Attorney Holder is aware of the transaction between the parties. The learned senior counsel would further contend that the respondent has registered a civil suit on the same set of facts in O.S.No.5 of 2026 seeking refund of the amount and also initiated proceedings under the Act. He would seek quashment of the proceedings on the aforesaid two grounds, that in view of the Special Power of Attorney Holder not disclosing in the complaint that he is aware of entire facts, the complaint could not have been entertained and that a civil suit is pending between the parties on the same set of facts. He would seek to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.C. NARAYANAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – (2014) 11 SCC 790 to buttress his submission that a power of attorney holder, unless he avers that he is completely aware of the facts, the complaint is not entertainable.

Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Bipin Hegde appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the Special Power of Attorney Holder is the son of the respondent who has recorded his sworn statement. In the sworn statement, the Special Power of Attorney Holder narrates that he is aware of the facts, as he is the son of the complainant. The complain