- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22226 CRL.P No. 8349 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8349 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI ANURADHA EARTH MOVERS BRIGADE TECH GARDENS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. N. V. BABU REDDYY S/O SRI. VENUGOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.448, BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, NEAR DOODANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU – 560 037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAHUL P., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S MATS FUEL PARK, BROOK FIELDS, KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. K.C.V MADHUKAR, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMESH BABU R., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2023 AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.60848/2023, ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.59329/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE 34th A.C.M.M COURT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22226 CRL.P No. 8349 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) To set aside the order dated 20.11.2023 and to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.60848/2023 arising out of PCR No.59329/2023 on the file of the 34th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. ii) To call for entire records pertaining to C.C.No.60848/2023 on the file of the 34th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. iii) To pass such orders as it deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the said facts and circumstances for the above case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent had filed the instant complaint in PCR No.59329/2023 dated 26.10.2023 against the petitioner-accused for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner-accused having entered appearance in the said proceedings has filed the instant petition, inter alia contending that the complaint itself is not maintainable, since the claim of the complainant was based on a time barred debt. It is also contended - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22226 CRL.P No. 8349 of 2024 that the petitioner has not received statutory notice and the impugned notice deserves to be quashed on this ground also. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- complainant submits that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of K. Hymavathi Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. – 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1128 and Atamjit Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 99, the issue regarding debt or liability being time barred is a mixed question of law and fact, which has to be decided only after a full fledged trial and not in a proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that even the issue as regards the petitioner having been served with statutory notice or not would also have to be decided only after a full fledged trial, since the same involves mixed question of law and fact. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. In the case of Atamjit Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (supra), the Apex Court held as under: “1. Leave granted. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22226 CRL.P No. 8349 of 2024 2. This is an appeal instituted at the instance of the original complainant of a complaint lodged under inter alia Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the “NI Act”) (the “Underlying Complaint”) assailing an order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi (the “High Court”) in CRL. M.C. No. 556 of 2019 whereunder the High Court quashed an order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate -10, South-East, Saket Court (the “Trial Court”) summoning Mr. Amrit Sandhu Coaster/Respondent No. 2 in relation to the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act (the “Impugned Order”). 3. The High Court by way of the Impugned Order deemed it appropriate to quash the underlying proceedings on the principal premise that as on the date of the issuance of the summoning order, the underlying debt and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred. 4. Prima-facie from the materials placed before us, it is revealed that pursuant to various transactions entered into by and between the (i) Appellant; (ii) Respondent No. 2; and (iii) Jasween Sandhu i.e., Accused No. 2 in the Underlying Complaint, allegedly pertaining to year 2011, the Appellant was owed a sum of approximately Rs. 20,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Ten Thousand). Accordingly Respondent No. 2 issued a cheque bearing number 329623 dated 06.03.2017 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Branch West Punjabi Bagh, Central Market, New Delhi-110026 for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) in favour of the appellant (the “Subject Cheque”). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22226 CRL.P No. 8349 of 2024 5. Upon a perusal of the Impugned Judgment, it is disclosed that High Court has relied upon (i) the Assured Returns Agreement dated 16.09.2011; and (ii) other receipts issued by the Appellant to Respondent No. 2, all of which pertain to transaction(s) entered into in the year 2011 to conclude that in the absence of an acknowledgment of any underlying debt between 2011 and the date of issuance of the Subject Cheque i.e., 06.03.2017, the underlying debt could not be held to be legally enforceable debt or liability on account of being barred by limitation. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution of Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act was held to be improper; and accordingly, by way of impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the summoning order issued by the Trial Court; and the Underlying Complaint. 6. At the threshold, it would be apposite to refer to decisions of this Court in Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1760-1761 of 2022 whereunder this Court has opined on the scope of interference by the High Court in proceedings under 138 of the NI Act qua an allegedly time barred debt at the stage of issuance of summons, whilst exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the “CrPC”). The operative paragraph in Yogesh Jain (Supra) has been reproduced as under: “8. Once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonoured a statutory notice is issued, it is for the Accused to dislodge the legal presumption available Under Sections 118 and 139 reply of the N.I. Act. Whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not, itself prima facie, is a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22226 CRL.P No. 8349 of 2024 matter of evidence and could not have been adjudicated in an application filed by the Accused Under Section 482 of the CrPC.” 7. From a perusal of legal position enunciated above, it is clear that the classification of the underlying debt or liability as being barred by limitation is a question that must be decided based on the evidence adduced by the parties. We agree with aforesaid opinion. Undoubtedly, the question regarding the time barred nature of an underlying debt or liability in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is a mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the Impugned Order is set aside. The proceedings emanating from the Underlying Complaint i.e., CC No. 6437 of 2017 is restored to the file of the Trial Court. 9. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No order as to costs.” 6. It is also relevant to state that the issue regarding receipt/service of notice on the petitioner would also require to be decided only after a full fledged trial and not in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22226 CRL.P No. 8349 of 2024 merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dismiss the petition reserving liberty in favour of both parties to urge all contentions before the trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of both sides to urge all contentions before the Trial Court. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC: List No.: 4 Sl No.: 4