2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10877
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R. NATARAJ
MR.CHETHAN KUMAR .S.N – Appellant
Versus
MR.B.RAMESHAN – Respondent
WP 8037/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8037 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR.CHETHAN KUMAR S.N.
S/O NANJUNDACHAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.34 AND 35, 2ND CROSS, 14TH MAIN ROAD, MALAGALA, BANGALORE-560091.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. B.RAMESHAN S/O BABU RAO ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, SIRI RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS ROAD, Digitally PAPANNA LAYOUT, PAPANAHALLI ROAD, signed by VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI, SUMA BANGALORE-560032.
Location:
HIGH COURT OF
2. MR. SRIRAM KARNATAKA S/O B. RAMESHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, SIRI RESIDENCY, 1ST CROSS ROAD, PAPANNA LAYOUT, PAPANAHALLI ROAD, VISHWANATHA NAGENAHALLI, BANGALORE-560032.
3. MR. PREETHAM P SORTHUR S/O PRAHLAD M SORTUR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O NO.51, 1ST CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR, N.R.SHRUSTI PUBLIC THAVAREKERE, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-562130.
4. STATE BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE DULY REPRESENTED BY HIGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;
SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL CASES PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER (a) C.C.NO.16/2018 INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT, PENDING ON THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES JUDGE (SCCH-22) AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-Y; (b) CC.NO.51479/2018 INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT, PENDING ON THE COURT OF 58TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-Z; (c) CC.NO.514772018 INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF NI ACT, PENDING ON THE COURT OF 58TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL AT BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-AA AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings initiated against him by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in C.C No.16/2018 pending before the Court of Small Causes Judge (SCCH-22), Bengaluru, C.C No.51479/2018 and C.C No.51477/2018 pending before the 58th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Mayo Hall, Bengaluru or to transfer PCR No.9598/2017 on the file of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to be tried along with C.C No.16/2018, CC No. 51479/2018 and C.C No.51477/2018.
2. The respondents No.1, 2, 3 herein had initiated proceedings to prosecute the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court after recording the sworn statements of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 took cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and registered C.C Nos.16/2018, 51479/2018 and 51477/2018. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein had filed PCR No.9598/2017 alleging commission of offences by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 under Sections 323, 324, 388, 448, 449, 452, 504, 506 of IPC. The said private complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The jurisdictional police after investigating the offence, filed a B report. The petitioner filed a protest memo against accepting the B report. It is at that stage, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the prosecution launched against him by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 or in the alternative directing to transfer PCR No.9598/2017 to be tried along with the criminal cases filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
3. (i) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the defence that the petitioner