- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34382 WP No. 25905 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25905 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. VIDYAVATHI A. BHAT W/O. I ASHOK BHAT, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT: "SHRI BHAGAVATHI NILAYA", DOOR NO.4-130/45, DEVARAGUDDE, BADAGA YEKKAR, KATEEL POST, MANGALORE - 574 148. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. AJITH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE B. GOPALAKRISHNA, R/AT: STERLING APARTMENT, NO.B 201, MADHYA POST, KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.1272/2022 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE V ADDL J.M.F.C. AT MANGALURU. B) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 ON APPLICATION UNDER SEC.33 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 PASSED IN C.C.NO.1272/2022 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE V J.M.F.C. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34382 WP No. 25905 of 2025 AT MANGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-G. CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on an application moved under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. By way of the said application, the petitioner/accused had prayed for impounding of the documents marked at Exs. P-6 and P-7, contending that the same were not duly stamped and therefore could not be acted upon in evidence. The learned Magistrate, upon considering the said application, rejected it by holding that insistence on stamping of the said documents does not arise in a proceeding initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. While arriving at such a conclusion, the learned Magistrate has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34382 WP No. 25905 of 2025 in Preetesh Kumar v. The State of Telangana and Another (Crl.P.No.10057/2016), wherein a similar contention had been repelled. 2. At the outset, it is to be noted that in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheque itself, which is dishonoured and returned by the bank with an endorsement, constitutes the pivotal and foundational document for adjudication. Once the complainant demonstrates due compliance with the statutory requirements under Section 138(b) by issuance of a legal notice within the prescribed period, and thereafter lodges a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the presumption under Section 139 of the Act comes into play in favour of the complainant. The burden then shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption and establish, by leading rebuttal evidence, that no legally recoverable debt or liability exists. Thus, the entire edifice of a prosecution under Section 138 essentially rests upon the dishonoured cheque - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34382 WP No. 25905 of 2025 and the supporting statutory compliance, and not on any ancillary documents such as Exs.P-6 and P-7 which are sought to be impounded on the ground of inadequate stamping. 3. In the above backdrop, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate, by relying upon the ratio laid down by the Telangana High Court, has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The attempt of the petitioner/accused to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act in the course of a proceeding under Section 138 appears to be only a dilatory tactic with the intention of protracting the disposal of the complaint, rather than a bona fide challenge on admissibility of documents. It is well settled that in prosecutions of this nature, the accused cannot be permitted to raise hyper- technical objections with a view to frustrate or delay the expeditious disposal mandated under the scheme of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34382 WP No. 25905 of 2025 4. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not call for any interference. The petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76