IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1869 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SRI. ANJINAYULU.M.

@MOODIGERI ANJINAYULU S/O. POSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO. 11, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS, SRINIVASAPURA, NEAR H.P. PETROL BUNK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally SRI. SRINIVASALU. S., signed by SANJEEVINI J S/O. SUBBAIAH KARISHETTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, Location: High Court of R/AT NO. 8, KAVERI NAGAR A BLOCK, Karnataka L.R. BANDE MAIN ROAD R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU- 560 032.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHESH S.N, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.RP NO.90/2025 DATED 14.01.2026.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner/complainant now stands at the doors of this Court calling in question the closure of the complaint filed by him invoking Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for short) for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the NI Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Kumbar Vasant Fakeerappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mahesh S.N., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner and the respondent enter into a transaction. The transaction leads the complainant to file a private complaint against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The complaint is preferred after a delay of 16 days. The complaint did not accompany with it an application seeking condonation of delay, the trial goes on. All along the petitioner/complainant had maintained that he had preferred the application within time, but when it was brought to the notice of the concerned Court, the court could not proceed further, as the complaint itself was filed after 16 days delay as obtaining under the statute. The complainant then files an application to get the said delay cured at the stage when the matter was set for argument. The concerned Court then closes the complaint against which the petitioner prefers a revision in Criminal Revision Petition No.90/2025, only to be rejected. It transpires that the concerned Court allows the application seeking condonation of delay against which the accused prefers an application before the Court of session in Criminal Revision petition No.90/2025. The order that allowed the application is upturned by the Revisional Court and therefore, the petitioner/complainant is before this court in the subject petition.

4. The issue lies in a narrow compass whether a complaint filed for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act with a delay could be entertained without an application seeking condonation of delay. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court, in two of its judgments, has considered this issue. In H.S. OBEROI BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MSN WOODTECH¹ the Apex Court has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

6. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that the order taking cognizance and issuing summons needs interference. From a purely legal point of view where facts are admitted that the complaint was filed beyond the time prescribed under the statute, there cannot be an automatic or presumed condonation. In the present case, the respondent is on a weaker wicket for the reason, that the Trial Court proceeds on an erroneous presumption and notes that the complaint was filed within the limitation period. Even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that the power under Section 142 of the Act exists for the Court to condone delay, the first requirement is that the Court has to take note of the fact that there is a delay and there