- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31384 CRL.P No. 11710 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11710 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MOHAMMED SHAKEEL S/O MOHAMMED RAHIM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT 5TH CROSS NEAR WATER TANK GANDHINAGARA MANDYA CITY-571401 BUSINESS AT: BIG BOYS CARS OWNER KITHOOR RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE, GANDHINAGARA MANDYA CITY-570017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: N PRANAB S/O LATE J. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT 1444, PADMANJALI KRUPA Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31384 CRL.P No. 11710 of 2025 4TH CROSS, ASHOKA NAGARA MANDYA CITY-571401 …RESPONDENT CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1331/2024 RELATING TO THE PCR NO.214/2024 ON PENDING FILE OF THE COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MANDYA FILED UNDER SEC.223 OF BNSS 2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT 1881 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2 ETC. 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 petitioner/accused has filed the captioned petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1331/2024, primarily referring to the averments made at paragraph 2 of the private complaint filed in PCR.No.214/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act' for short). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31384 CRL.P No. 11710 of 2025 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, with reference to the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the private complaint, contends that the alleged transaction referred to by the respondent/complainant is not with the petitioner/accused personally, but with the petitioner’s wife. It is further contended that the amounts alleged to have been advanced by the complainant were credited to the bank account of the petitioner’s wife. In view of this, it is argued that the two cheque leaves handed over by the petitioner’s wife have been misappropriated or misused by the respondent/complainant, and that two separate private complaints have been filed with respect to these two cheques despite the absence of any personal liability on the part of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on additional documents, including the statement of account maintained by the petitioner with HDFC Bank, Mandya Branch, submits that in respect of the alleged transaction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31384 CRL.P No. 11710 of 2025 between the complainant and the petitioner/accused, no amount is outstanding. According to the petitioner, the entire hand loan advanced by the respondent/complainant has been duly repaid, and the statement of account produced before this Court substantiates that all amounts claimed by the complainant have been fully discharged. 4. Learned counsel further reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and strenuously submitted that, having regard to the averments made by the complainant in paragraph 2 of the private complaint, the essential ingredient required under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 namely, the existence of a legally recoverable debt or liability is not made out. In the absence of such a debt, it is contended that the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not maintainable. 5. It is also contended that, if indulgence under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not granted, the continuation of proceedings for the alleged offence under Section 138 of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31384 CRL.P No. 11710 of 2025 the N.I. Act would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, learned counsel has urged this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused. 6. On perusal of the averments made in the private complaint and the grounds urged in the present petition, it is apparent that the defence now sought to be raised by the petitioner/accused pertains to factual disputes which are ordinarily determinable only during the course of trial. It is well settled that once a cheque is issued and presented, and is dishonoured, a presumption arises under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder, that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, unless the contrary is proved. Therefore, the grounds and documents relied upon by the petitioner/accused in the present petition can only form part of the defence to be evaluated at the trial stage, and cannot be entertained for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31384 CRL.P No. 11710 of 2025 purpose of quashing the complaint at this preliminary stage under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. The legal position on this aspect has been consistently reiterated by this Court in numerous judgments, holding that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a presumption of law, distinct from a presumption of fact. This statutory presumption operates in favour of the complainant, creating a legal obligation on the part of the accused to rebut it by leading credible evidence. In the present case, the petitioner’s contentions that (i) the transaction was with his wife and not with him, and (ii) the loan advanced by the complainant has been fully repaid, are matters which require substantiation through evidence before the trial court. This Court, therefore, cannot rely on the counter-documents submitted in support of the petition to negate the statutory presumption. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31384 CRL.P No. 11710 of 2025 8. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to adduce rebuttal evidence during trial to demonstrate that no legally recoverable debt existed in his favour in light of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the private complaint. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. All rival contentions raised by the parties are left open for consideration and adjudication during the trial. 11. It is clarified that this Court has refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the disputes raised, which shall be determined strictly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE KTY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47