Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/12982/2026 of SRI. SHREESHA S.P. Vs SMT. SARVPREET KAUR on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010583472026 NC: 2026:KHC:52668 CRL.P No. 12982 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12982 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHREESHA S.P. S/O PRABHAKARA S.G,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12982 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. SHREESHA S.P.
S/O PRABHAKARA S.G,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.31, S1, 1ST MAIN,
ABOVE SDM, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560040
2.
M/S SUNNESS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,
(COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT)
3.
M/S SUNNESS CAPITAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,
(COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
4.
M/S SUNNESS TRADE PVT. LTD.,
(COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT)
PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 HAVE REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR, 5TH MAIN,
RPC LAYOUT, OPP BANK OF INDIA,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. SHREESHA S.P. (PETITIONER NO. 1)
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VISHRUTH C.,ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
AND:
SMT. SARVPREET KAUR
D/O LATE CHANNABORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.4/4, METHVEN STREET,
MOUNT DRUITT, NSW 2770,
AUSTRALIA. PERMANENT RESIDENT
MANNAT NO.83, 2ND BLOCK,
D GROUP EMPLOYEES LAYOUT,
NEAR HEROHALLI WATER TANK,
LINGADEERANAHALLI, VISWANEEDAM,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER
SHRI KULJIT SINGH,
S/O JASWANT SINGH
MANNAT NO.83, 2nD BLOCK,
D GROUP EMPLOYEES LAYOUT,
NEAR HEROHALLI WATER TANK,
LINGADEERANHALLI, VISWANEEDAM,
BENGALURU 560091.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.6815/2025 (P.C.R.
NO.15920/2024),
ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL
PROCEEDINGS
THERETO, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LIII ADDL. CHIEF
JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU,
AS
AGAINST
THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF
THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, AT ANNEXURE A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. The petition is filed to quash the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, 1881). The proceeding is pending in C.C.No.6815/2025 arising from PCR No.15920/2024. The matter is pending before the LIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 was in Gwalior Prison when the notice under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 was sent to Bengaluru Prison. It is contended that the complainant was aware that the petitioner No.1 was in Prison. It is also submitted that the notice is not sent to the residential house, however, a notice is sent to the office address which premises was already taken over by the complainant and the complainant was aware that the said notice sent to the office will not be served on the accused.
4. Thus, it is urged that the notice sent to the office address is invalid and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 138 of Act, 1881.
HC-KAR
5. It is the contention that since, petitioner No.1 was not in Bengaluru Prison when the notice was sent, there is no valid service of notice. As such, the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be initiated against petitioner No.1.
6. It appears that the notice has been sent in the name of the petitioner to the prison address in Bengaluru. It is not disputed that for some period the petitioner was detained in Bengaluru.
7. The Court is of the view that, whether the complainant had the knowledge that the petitioner No.1 was in Gwalior Prison or shifted to Gwalior prison when the notice was sent to Bengaluru Prison is a question of fact which has to be considered during trial. At this juncture, the proceeding cannot be quashed.
8. Keeping open all contentions, the petition is dismissed.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter.
HC-KAR
10. The Court has taken note of the fact that the cheque is signed by petitioner No.1 and the complaint is in time.
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31 …