- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38609 CRL.P No. 12237 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12237 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. PD MEMORIAL RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SRI. JOGINDER SINGH LATHER, CO-CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY PD MEMORIAL RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION, BOTH ARE AT SECTAR-3A, SARAI AURANGABAD, BAHADURGARH, HARYANA - 124 507. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINOD S, ADVOCATE) AND: IBM INDIA PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATION UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SUBRAMANYA ARCHADE, 12, BANERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38609 CRL.P No. 12237 of 2025 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. VENUGOPAL R. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PUJA PRIYADARSHINI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.06.2025 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.25045/2024 BY THE XXVIII ADDL.CIT CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-29 MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.03.2024 PASSED IN C.C.NO.15334/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL.JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND A.C.M.M MAYO HALL UNIT 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 The present petition is filed by the petitioners/accused assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. (wrongly quoted as Section 69) came to be rejected. The said application was filed seeking issuance of witness summons to the Manager of Megahertz Infotech Private Limited in order to establish that the alleged hand loan was extended by the said company, since there exists a statutory bar for the complainant/company to directly advance a hand loan to the petitioners. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38609 CRL.P No. 12237 of 2025 which order came to be confirmed by the revisional court in Crl.R.P. No.25045/2024. 2. The respondent/complainant instituted a private complaint alleging that despite supply of computer hardware under a Term Lease Master Agreement, the petitioners failed to repay the outstanding dues on demand. It was contended that the petitioners had issued cheques towards discharge of the said liability. On presentation, the cheques were dishonoured on account of “stop payment” instructions issued by the drawer. Consequent to dishonour, the complainant issued a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the petitioners failed to comply with the demand made under the notice, the complainant filed a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was lodged in the year 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the complainant/company could not have directly extended a hand loan to the accused, and that the alleged transaction was routed through Megahertz Infotech Private Limited. It was therefore urged that examination of the Manager of the said company was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38609 CRL.P No. 12237 of 2025 crucial, as his testimony would demonstrate that the transaction projected in the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was factually incorrect. However, the learned Magistrate declined to grant indulgence, noting that the accused had already availed several opportunities under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to cross-examine the complainant and had also examined the Manager of Punjab National Bank as D.W.1, through whom several documents were marked. 4. The Magistrate, while considering the stage of the proceedings, observed that the petitioners had been granted sufficient opportunity and that repeated applications appeared intended only to protract the trial. It was further noted that the cheque transactions dated back to the period between 2012 and 2017, and that the dishonour had occurred in 2016. Having regard to the prolonged pendency and the conduct of the accused in seeking repeated adjournments for their evidence, the Magistrate declined to entertain the application. 5. The Revisional Court, while affirming the order of the Magistrate, meticulously examined the material on record. It noted that the petitioners had already produced documentary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38609 CRL.P No. 12237 of 2025 evidence, Exs.D8 to D20, to support their defence that the transaction was in the nature of a hand loan. In view of such documentary evidence, the Revisional Court was of the opinion that oral evidence of the proposed witness was not necessary for adjudication of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has also been heard and permitted to advance submissions. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on both sides and upon perusal of the records, this Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below while rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. A careful reading of the impugned orders would reveal that both the learned Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court have taken into account the fact that the transaction in question relates back to the years 2015 and 2016 and the cheques which form the subject matter of the prosecution are also dated during the said period. It is also evident from the records that both the complainant and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38609 CRL.P No. 12237 of 2025 accused have already led their respective evidence in support of their contentions and that the proceedings are now at the stage of final arguments. 8. It is well settled that in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once a cheque is presented and is dishonoured, there arises a statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act in favour of the holder of the cheque with regard to the existence of an antecedent debt or liability. The burden of rebuttal lies squarely on the accused, who must adduce cogent evidence to dispel such presumption. On a close scrutiny of the record and the conduct of the proceedings, this Court finds that the petitioners/accused have, on several occasions, sought to prolong the matter by filing repeated applications at different stages. The present application, in the opinion of this Court, is another attempt to expand the scope of enquiry in a manner not permissible in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. 9. The defence that is now sought to be projected by the petitioners is that though they do not dispute the existence of debt, the debt was not on account of supply of equipment but rather arose from a hand loan transaction. It is further urged by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38609 CRL.P No. 12237 of 2025 the petitioners that since the bank guarantee invoked by the complainant had already satisfied the liability, there remained no subsisting dues on the date of presentation of the cheques, and therefore the cheques could not have been presented for encashment. It is trite that such a defence, if at all available, has to be established through rebuttal evidence. The concurrent findings of the Courts below clearly indicate that the petitioners have already availed sufficient opportunities and have placed documentary evidence, including Exs.D8 to D20, in support of their defence. The learned Magistrate is therefore obliged, at the stage of final hearing, to carefully evaluate the evidence let in by the complainant alongside the rebuttal evidence of the accused. 10. In this backdrop, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the defence set up by the petitioners, it is observed that since the petitioners have already adduced their rebuttal evidence, it is now incumbent upon them to advance their final submissions without any further delay. Considering that the transaction relates back to 2015–2016 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38609 CRL.P No. 12237 of 2025 and that the cheque amount involved is to the tune of approximately Rs.33,10,037/-, this Court finds no justification for any further protraction of the proceedings. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Both the learned Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court having concurrently held that no valid grounds are made out by the petitioners to summon the Manager of Megahertz Infotech Private Limited, this Court cannot, in exercise of its limited supervisory jurisdiction, take a contrary view. Accordingly, the criminal petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT:BHK