Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/6654/2019 of M/S. RAYEN STEELS PVT. LTD., Vs M/S. XINDIA STEELS LIMITED on 18 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010426232019 NC: 2026:KHC:50996 CRL.P No. 6655 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 6654 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6655 OF 2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6654 OF 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6655 OF 2019
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6654 OF 2019
IN CRL.P NO.6655/2019:
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S. RAYEN STEELS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. GATTU RAMU,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT SY.NO.1115D, 1115E,
HARAGINADONI ROAD,
VENI VEERAPUR CROSS,
BELLARY-583 104.
2.
MR. GATTU RAMU,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT SY NO.1115D, 1115E,
HARAGINADONI ROAD,
VENI VEERAPUR CROSS,
BELLARY-583 104.
3.
MR. SHESHANKOTI PRAKASH,
DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT SY NO.1115D, 1115E,
HARAGINADONI ROAD,
VENI VEERAPUR CROSS,
BELLARY-583 104.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
MR. ACCHANALA MANOHAR,
DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT SY NO.1115D, 1115E,
HARAGINADONI ROAD,
VENI VEERAPUR CROSS,
BELLARY-583 104.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J.M. UMESHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. XINDIA STEELS LIMITED,
”THE ESTATE” 10TH FLOOR,
121, DICKENSON ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 042,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE,
MR. SWAMINATHAN,
(GM -ADMIN & SALES).
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ROHIT MAMMEN ALEX &
SRI. ANJAN DEV N., ADVOCATES)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDIGNS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN
C.C.NO.55993/2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE LVII CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P NO.6654/2019:
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S. RAYEN STEELS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI. GATTU RAMU,
HC-KAR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT SY. NO.1115D, 1115E,
HARAGINADONI ROAD,
VENI VEERAPUR CROSS,
BELLARI-583 104.
2.
MR. GATTU RAMU,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT SY. NO.1115D, 1115E,
HARAGINADONI ROAD,
VENI VEERAPUR CROSS,
BELLARI-583 104.
3.
MR. SHESHANKOTI PRAKASH,
DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT SY. NO.1115D, 1115E,
HARAGINADONI ROAD,
VENI VEERAPUR CROSS,
BELLARI-583 104.
4.
MR. ACCHANALA MANOHAR,
DIRECTOR,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT SY. NO.1115D, 1115E,
HARAGINADONI ROAD,
VENI VEERAPUR CROSS,
BELLARI-583 104.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UMESHA MURTHY J M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. XINDIA STEELS LIMITED,
”THE ESTATE” 10TH FLOOR,
121, DICKENSON ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 042,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
HC-KAR
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. SWAMINATHAN,
(GM-ADMIN AND SALES).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ROHIT MAMMEN ALEX, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN
C.C.NO.55994/2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS
ACT
ON
THE
FILE
OF
LVII
CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
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 for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Trial Court has committed an error in taking the cognizance even though resolution and invoices are not produced. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that nothing is stated in the complaint in respect of accused No.3 is concerned. In paragraph No.2 of the complaint it is stated that accused Nos.2 and 4 are incharge of and
HC-KAR
responsible for the conduct of business of accused No.1 company.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that these two petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 to 4. The learned counsel would submit that accused No.2 is the Managing Director of the Company and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the Directors of the company. The accused Nos.2 and 4 were incharge of the affairs of the company and the same is stated in paragraph No.2 of the complaint.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, private complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused No.1 is the company and accused No.2 is the Managing Director of accused No.1 company and admittedly, cheque was issued by accused No.2 as a Managing Director of the company. Though accused Nos.3 and 4 are Directors, except a single sentence made in the complaint in paragraph No.2 that accused Nos.2 and 4 are incharge of and responsible for the conduct of business of accused No.1 company, nothing is stated in respect of accused
HC-KAR
No.3 is concerned. In respect of accused No.4 is concerned, nothing is stated that he was incharge of affairs of the company. When no such specific allegations are made, the question of taking cognizance against accused Nos.3 and 4 does not arise and hence, the Trial Court has committed an error in taking cognizance against accused Nos.3 and 4 and they are only the Directors of the Company. No specific averments are made that they are in charge of affairs and responsible for the affairs of the company.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Both the petitions are allowed in part.
(ii) The proceedings initiated against accused Nos.3 and 4/petitioner Nos.3 and 4 is quashed.
(iii) The petition in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 is rejected.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11