- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33203 CRL.P No. 12109 of 2025 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. 12109 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI JAYASRINIVASAN, S/O RAMUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, 36TH A CROSS ROAD, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DAYANAND HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SRINIDHI, S/O YOGANANDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.80, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN 4TH CROSS, OPP TO IIMB VENKATADRI LAYOUT J.P. NAGARA, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078 …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST HIM IN C.C.NO.29365/2021 (PCR NO.10054/2021) ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XX ADDL. CJM BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/S/U 138 OF NI ACT. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33203 CRL.P No. 12109 of 2025 THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 accused seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.29365/2021, which is presently pending on the file of the learned XX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore. The proceedings arise out of a private complaint instituted by the respondent/complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’). The gist of the complaint is that the cheque issued by the petitioner- accused in favour of the complainant was dishonoured on presentation, and despite service of the statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33203 CRL.P No. 12109 of 2025 N.I. Act, the petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount, thereby attracting penal liability. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction, contending that the entire proceedings are an abuse of process of law. It is his specific case that the cheques in question were never issued to the complainant in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. Instead, it is asserted that these cheques were unlawfully procured and misused by the complainant. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on O.S. No.5075/2021, a civil suit instituted by the petitioner before the competent civil court, wherein he has sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein to return the very same cheques. The petitioner asserts that the said defendants, without authority, parted with these cheques and handed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33203 CRL.P No. 12109 of 2025 them over to the complainant, who in turn has misused the same by initiating the present prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. At this juncture, it is necessary to observe the settled legal position under the scheme of the N.I. Act. Once a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is filed and the complainant produces the dishonoured cheque together with the bank endorsement/return memo indicating dishonour, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act automatically comes into play. Section 139 of the Act raises a legal presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that the instrument was issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. This presumption is, of course, rebuttable; however, it is for the accused to lead - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33203 CRL.P No. 12109 of 2025 evidence and establish circumstances that dislodge the statutory presumption. 4. In the light of the above settled position, the contention of the petitioner that he has filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction in O.S. No.5075/2021 and that the cheques were misused, cannot be a ground for quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. The said plea squarely raises disputed questions of fact which necessarily require adjudication on the basis of evidence at trial. Whether the petitioner had issued the cheques voluntarily in favour of the complainant in discharge of a debt or whether they were issued as security to third parties and subsequently misused, are matters to be established during trial before the learned Magistrate. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33203 CRL.P No. 12109 of 2025 embark upon an enquiry into such disputed factual aspects. 5. In view of forgoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act operates in favour of the complainant and the petitioner is at liberty to contest the complaint proceedings in C.C. No.29365/2021 by producing his defence and rebutting the presumption in accordance with law. At this stage, however, no interference is called for by this Court. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13