TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Honble XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru City Cognizance taken under sec.223 BNSS act. 2. Respondent No. 2 had filed a private complaint in PCR No.15607/2024 under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the cheque which had been issued by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 had been dishonored with the endorsement of no such bank. It is in those circumstances that a notice had been issued. The notice though served, there was no reply issued to the said notice and in pursuance thereof, a private complaint came to be filed. After recording the sworn statement, a criminal case in CC No. 43740/2024 was registered and summons i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk, the same was returned on 22.09.2021 with an endorsement "Invalid cheque (SBH)". Therefore, it can be presumed that the cheque in question was invalid on the date of presentation before the ICICI Bank 12. In view of the above discussions, the subject cheque, which was issued from the account maintained in erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad after its merger with State Bank of India, was not a valid cheque on the date of its presentation before the ICICI Bank as required by proviso (a) of Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, dishonouring the same will not attract the liability under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... point is in the negative, for the following reasons; As per the case of the appellant - complainant, the cheque - Ex.P1 has been issued by the respondent - accused for making payment of the amount borrowed in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant - complainant has presented the said cheque for encashment. The said cheque came to be dishonoured and the bank endorsement is at Ex.P3. On perusal of Ex.P3, the cheque issued by the respondent - accused ie., Ex.P1 has been dishnoured for the reason "bank under liquidation as per R.B.I order from 12.02.2004". The cheque is not dishonoured for want of funds in the account of the respondent - accused. The cheque - Ex.P1 has been dishonoured as the bank in which the respondent - accused is h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On all the above grounds, he submits that the criminal petition is required to be allowed and the proceedings are required to be quashed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused papers. 5. The short but important question that would arise for consideration is whether a cheque issued on a bank which is merged with another bank would become invalid requiring a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to be quashed? 6. It is not in dispute in the present matter that the cheque has been issued on the bank account of the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said cheque had been misplaced as regards which a complaint had been filed. The petitioner ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Strangely, the dishonour memo in the present case indicates that the cheque has been dishonoured for the reason 'no such bank'. Such a dishonour memo could not in the considered opinion of this Court have been issued by the Bank of Baroda to whom the cheque had been presented. If it is at the instructions of Bank of Baroda, it is even worse inasmuch as the Bank of Baroda having taken over the assets and liabilities of Vijaya Bank, it could not have communicated such a reason. If the Vijaya Bank has issued such an endorsement without contacting the Bank of Baroda which is the resultant entity, then the matter is even worse for Bank of Baroda, who could not have issued such an endorsement. Looked at from any angle, a cheque which had been i....