- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37171 CRL.P No. 8736 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8736 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. PRASHANT KUMAR S/O MR. SHEETAL PRASAD JHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT ANAND VIHAR COLONY, AT SAHBAJPUR BHIKHANOUR FACTORY UMANAGAR S.O DISTRICT MUZZAFARPUR, BIHAR - 842 004 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MEENAKSHI V, ADVOCATE) AND: BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT MUMBAI PUNE ROAD AKURDI, PUNE - 411 035 MAHARASHTRA AND HAVING A BRANCH OFFICE AT 801 AND 805, 8TH FLOOR, PRESTIGE TOWERS, RESIDENCY ROD BANGLAORE - 25 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. MAHANTESH B J AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PH NO.9738231711 …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37171 CRL.P No. 8736 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.4167/2024 ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU (SCCH-10) FILED U/S 138 OF N.I ACT, 1881. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C. No.4167/2024 on the ground that the statutory notice contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”) was not duly served upon the petitioner. It is contended that the legal notice was dispatched to an incorrect address, namely, the address of an auction purchaser, despite the complainant being fully aware that the petitioner/accused was not residing at the said premises. On this basis, it is urged that there is no compliance with the mandatory requirement of service of notice, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37171 CRL.P No. 8736 of 2025 2. Facts leading to the filing of the petition; The respondent/complainant instituted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner/accused. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner entered appearance before the trial court and was enlarged on bail. 3. The present petition has been filed primarily on the premise that there is no due compliance with Section 138(b) of the Act. The petitioner has further attempted to persuade this Court by contending that the complaint has been initiated by playing fraud on the court, despite the pendency of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act between the petitioner and the respondent-bank. 4. This Court, in a catena of judgments, has consistently held that issues relating to (i) non-service or improper service of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Act, (ii) allegations of fraud played upon the court to secure issuance of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37171 CRL.P No. 8736 of 2025 summons, and (iii) the existence or otherwise of a legally enforceable debt, are all disputed questions of fact. Such matters can appropriately be adjudicated only by the trial court upon appreciation of evidence led by both parties. 5. The strong objection urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no legally recoverable debt or liability, and therefore the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, cannot be accepted at this preliminary stage. Once a complaint under Section 138 of the Act is filed accompanied by the dishonoured cheque, a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act arises in favour of the complainant regarding the existence of an antecedent debt or liability. It is for the accused to lead rebuttal evidence to displace such presumption. 6. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not expected to embark upon a roving inquiry into disputed facts or evaluate evidence at the threshold. Any such exercise would amount to exceeding the scope of inherent powers and trenching upon the domain of the trial court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37171 CRL.P No. 8736 of 2025 7. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.4167/2024 at this stage. Liberty, however, is reserved to the petitioner to raise all permissible contentions before the trial court, to adduce rebuttal evidence, and to substantiate the grounds urged in the present petition in the course of trial. With these observations, the criminal petition stands dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of in terms of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT: BHK