- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33044 CRL.P No. 13617 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13617 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. GOPALAKRISHNA K S S/O SIVANAINTHA PERUMAL NADAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SIVASAKTHI DRIVING SCHOOL, R/AT. NO.1, SABARI SALAI, MADIPAKAM CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU STATE - 600 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ELANGOVAN K., ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. SUGANYA ELANGOVAN, W/O. VENKATESH RAJUKUMAR RAVINDRAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.C-2, 601, SNN RAJ, SERENITY APARTMENT, AKSHAYA NAGAR, BEGURU MAIN ROAD, YELLANAHALLI BENGALURU, AND ALSO AT: NO.204, AMEESHA JEWEL APARTMENT, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BILEKAHALLI, OPP: LIM COMPOUND, BENGALURU - 560 076. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARUN B K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.29721/2023. THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33044 CRL.P No. 13617 of 2024 COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT HEREIN SO FAR AS THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN CONCERNED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE XIX-ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.29721/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short " the NI Act"). 2. The respondent No.2–complainant has instituted the present proceedings alleging that the cheques issued by the petitioner–accused were dishonoured upon presentation. It is stated that despite issuance of the statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the "NI Act", the petitioner failed to comply with the demand and did not make payment of the cheque amount - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33044 CRL.P No. 13617 of 2024 within the stipulated time. Consequently, the respondent - complainant initiated a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The petitioner–accused, upon receipt of summons from the learned Magistrate, entered appearance and has now approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. The primary ground urged by the petitioner - accused is that there exists no legally enforceable debt or liability between the parties. It is the defence of the petitioner that the amount advanced by the complainant was in connection with a sale transaction and not by way of a hand loan as alleged. It is further contended that the petitioner has already executed a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and that in addition thereto, the respondent - complainant has also received a further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, once the sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33044 CRL.P No. 13617 of 2024 transaction was completed and additional payments made, the complainant was under an obligation to return the cheque. Therefore, it is argued that the complaint under Section 138 of the "N.I. Act" is not maintainable. 4. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the well- settled principle of law consistently reiterated by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Once a cheque is issued by the accused and the same is dishonoured upon presentation, Section 139 of the "N.I. Act" creates a statutory presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque. This presumption is a legal presumption, distinct from a presumption of fact and it mandates that the Court shall presume that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or other liability. However, such presumption is not conclusive and remains rebuttable. The burden, however, lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption by leading cogent evidence or by demonstrating circumstances which create a reasonable doubt regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33044 CRL.P No. 13617 of 2024 5. In the present case, the stand taken by the petitioner that the transaction was purely a sale transaction that the complainant has already obtained a registered sale deed and has also received a further sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, are all matters of defence which go to the root of the issue of whether there existed a legally recoverable debt on the date of issuance of the cheque. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be examined in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., where the Court is not expected to embark upon a detailed enquiry into evidence. The veracity of the petitioner’s claim can only be established during the course of trial by leading rebuttal evidence. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. The petitioner is relegated to face trial before the learned Magistrate, with liberty to rely upon the sale deed and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33044 CRL.P No. 13617 of 2024 other documents to substantiate his defence and rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to put forth his defence and rely upon the documents in the pending trial, the present petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2