Mr. Umesh K.G v. Smt. Bharathi H.N

What happened

The petitioner sought to quash CC No. 1195/2023 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, and to set aside the order of 22 February 2023 registering the case. The private complaint alleged an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of cheque No. 000065 drawn on HDFC Bank. The complaint said that in earlier proceedings (C.C. No. 54297/2021), when the matter had reached the stage of evidence, the accused approached the complainant for a compromise and issued the cheque dated 13 December 2022. The petitioner said the evidence in that case was recorded only on 24 July 2024, so the cheque could not have been issued when the matter reached the stage of evidence, and that the complainant's statement to the police in connection with a complaint by the petitioner referred to cheque No. 000068.

Questions before the court

• Should the complaint be quashed because of the timeline of the earlier case and the discrepancy in the cheque number?

Why the court ruled this way

On the first contention, the complaint's statement that the approach was made when the matter had reached the stage of evidence cannot be read as meaning after the evidence of the complainant's witness was actually recorded; the order sheet showed the matter was posted for evidence from 10 November 2022 and the petitioner had remained absent, so the contention that the cheque of 13 December 2022 could not have been issued was rejected (paragraphs 11 and 12). On the second, the discrepancy requires appreciation of the material and, if necessary, examination of the parties and documents at trial; the Court cannot determine whether it is a typographical error, an error in recording the statement, or relates to the actual cheque, and these are matters of fact (paragraph 14). The existence of a discrepancy does not itself warrant quashing when the complainant has pleaded the issue of cheque No. 000065 and the foundational facts; its evidentiary effect is for the trial court (paragraph 15). At this stage the Court does not weigh rival versions (paragraph 16).

Controlling point

The cheque-number discrepancy and the timeline are matters for trial, and there was no ground to quash the proceedings.

Order and next steps

No grounds being made out, the petition stood dismissed.

Practical implications

An accused who points to inconsistencies in the complainant's papers on a cheque should keep them for cross-examination, since the High Court will not decide such factual questions on a petition to quash.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court did not decide whether the cheque was issued or whether there was a legally enforceable debt; it observed only that the matters are for the trial court.