logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 997 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Dharwad)
Case No : Writ Petition Nos. 101897, 101937 Of 2025 (GM-RES)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Parties : H.R. Dinesh & Another Versus KVN. Govindaraj
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: R. Nagendra Naik, Lingesh V. Kattemane, Advocates. For the Respondent: Gurudev Gachchinamath, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 17-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC-D 12818,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/W Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to a) issue a writ in the Nature of Certiorari to quash the entire proceedings in Cc No.5662/2024 (PCR. No.489/2024) pending before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Hospet for the offense punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as per Annexure-A and etc.,.

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/W Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to issue a writ in the Nature of Certiorari to quash the entire proceedings in Cc No.5661/2024 (PCR. No.488/2024) pending before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Hospet for the offense punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as per Annexure-A and etc.,.)

Oral Order

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent in both these cases.

2. These petitions are filed to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.5662/2024 and C.C.No.5661/2024 pending before the JMFC, Hospete for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (For short, 'the NI Act').

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order condoning the delay of 375 days in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the delay is not properly explained. The Trial Court has not applied its mind to the factual positions correctly and without assigning valid reasons, has condoned the delay.

5. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, even excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period, which is required to be excluded in terms of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, still the delay from 01.03.2022 till 17.02.2023 has not been properly explained, as such, would urge that the order condoning the delay has to be set aside and the entire proceeding has to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, notice is sent to the 'to address' furnished by the accused himself and he has deliberately evaded service of notice and the Court had to issue non-bailable warrant to secure his presence.

7. After condoning the delay, when the notice was sent on the application for condonation of delay, the accused/petitioner deliberately evaded service of notice and did not appear before the Trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent would also urge that, the delay is properly explained by filing an affidavit. The complainant wanted to file the complaint in time. However, the accused made a statement that he has several cases pending in Mysore and pleaded time to make payment.

9. The complainant believed the assurance given by the accused and did not file the complaint immediately, noticing the fact that accused has quite a few criminal cases pending in Mysore, is the submission.

10. The Court has considered the contentions raised and perused the records.

11. The contention that the notice on the application for condonation of delay is not properly served, cannot be accepted for two reasons;

          (a) the notices have been sent to the addresses of the accused in Mysore as well as Hospete, which are not disputed by the complainant as they were the addresses furnished by the accused prior to the filing of the complaint;

          (b) assuming that the accused has shifted his place of residence/work place he has not informed the same to the complainant.

12. That being the position, the Court is of the view that service of notice on the application for condonation of delay is proper.

13. The accused has not appeared and opposed the application for condonation of delay based on the materials placed on record.

14. The Trial Court has accepted the reasons assigned and condoned the delay.

15. Admittedly, from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the limitation has to be excluded in view of the COVID-19 pandemic as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

16. In addition, the complainant has stated that he wanted to file the complaint in time. However, the accused made a request not to initiate the complaint as accused is facing criminal cases in Mysore.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his fairness does not dispute the fact that the accused is facing criminal cases in Mysore.

18. That being the position, the Court is of the view that delay has been satisfactory explained.

19. The order does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.

20. The petitions are dismissed.

21. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matters.
 
  CDJLawJournal