- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36749 CRL.P No. 11665 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11665 OF 2024 BETWEEN: ASIF TAMBULI S/O SIRAJ TAMBULI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MAYUR CHURUMURI PRODUCT, KURNAL CHOWK, DATTB NAGAR, JAMAVADI, SANGLI MAHARASHTRA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: K. S. NAGARAJ S/O SAGANE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SRI VENKATESHWARA TRADERS, GENDEHALLI ROAD BELUR TALUK, HASSAN - 573115. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHINNAPPA GOWDA D G., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 (FILED U/S.528 BNNS) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CASE BEARING C.C.NO.335/2020 (PCR NO.71/2020) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELUR, DISTRICT HASSAN TO PROSECUTION U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36749 CRL.P No. 11665 of 2024 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.335/2020 (PCR No.71/2020) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Beluru, Hassan 2. Facts leading to the case are as under; The respondent–complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner–accused purchased paddy from the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and in discharge of his liability, issued two post-dated cheques, one Cheque No.026250 for Rs.7,00,000/- dated 01.07.2020 and another Cheque No.026249 for Rs.8,00,000/- dated 02.07.2020, drawn on ICICI Bank, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36749 CRL.P No. 11665 of 2024 Sangli Main Branch, in favour of the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner assured the complainant that the amounts would be deposited in the bank for withdrawal, but upon presentation, both cheques were dishonoured with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Consequently, the complainant filed two separate private complaints in respect of the two cheques. 3. The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings on two grounds: (i) The learned Magistrate allegedly took cognizance without verifying whether the complainant had furnished sufficient evidence to establish a legally recoverable debt; and (ii) The learned Magistrate allegedly failed to ascertain whether the legal notice under Section 138B of the NI Act was duly served on the petitioner–accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the postal consignment tracker only reflects delivery at the Sangli Head Office, without any evidence of actual service to the petitioner. It is argued that in the absence of an R.P.A.D. receipt, the complainant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36749 CRL.P No. 11665 of 2024 failed to demonstrate compliance with Section 138B, which vitiates the proceedings. 4. In response, the learned counsel for the complainant has relied on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.10597/2024, wherein a similar stand was taken in respect of another cheque arising out of the same transaction. In that case, indulgence was not granted, and the petition was dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and examined the materials, this Court observes the following: a) Under Section 138 of the NI Act, once a cheque is returned dishonoured with the endorsement “Insufficient Funds,” Section 139 of the Act provides a legal presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of an antecedent liability. This presumption is rebuttable, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36749 CRL.P No. 11665 of 2024 it is incumbent on the accused to lead evidence to rebut the presumption. b) The postal consignment tracker relied upon by the petitioner shows that the notice was delivered to the Sangli Head Office, which, prima facie, indicates that the notice was dispatched. Even though the petitioner contends that this does not establish actual service on him, the question of service of notice under Section 138B is essentially a disputed question of fact. c) Whether the notice was properly served is a matter for trial evidence. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot undertake a factual determination on this aspect at the threshold. 6. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence by quashing the proceedings at this stage. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to place evidence during trial to substantiate the claim that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36749 CRL.P No. 11665 of 2024 notice under Section 138B of the NI Act was not duly served. Consequently, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to adduce rebuttal evidence in support of his defence. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22