- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38565 CRL.P No. 11205 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. 11205 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NEHA .B D/O BASAVARAJ .B.S AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.253, BLOCK 1 MAHAVEER WILLOW APARTMENT KENGERI, BENGALURU ALSO R/AT BELAGARAHALLI TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH .K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PPPASSCHIP TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. REP. BY VICE PRESIDENT DAYANANDA Y.S. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. NO.38, 2ND CROSS SUBBANNA GARDEN VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.36830/2024 ON THE FILE XXVIII ACJM, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE ALLEGED O/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38565 CRL.P No. 11205 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.36830/2024 on the file of XXVIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore City for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under; The respondent–complainant, who is the employer of the present petitioner, has instituted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case of the complainant is that, in terms of Clause 8 of the Employment Agreement entered into between the parties, the petitioner–accused, having undergone training at the cost of the employer, was not entitled to leave - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38565 CRL.P No. 11205 of 2025 employment unilaterally without serving three months’ prior notice. It is the complainant’s further allegation that, in this background, the petitioner–accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured with the bank returning it with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds.” Consequently, the complainant issued a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act, and upon failure of the petitioner to comply with the demand, the present complaint came to be filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends that the cheque in question was never issued towards the discharge of any antecedent debt or legally enforceable liability. According to him, the cheque was obtained in the context of the employment relationship and was not meant to be enforced under the NI Act. It is, therefore, his submission that the very ingredients necessary to attract Section 138 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38565 CRL.P No. 11205 of 2025 of the NI Act are not satisfied, and hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 4. This Court has carefully examined the submissions advanced and the material placed on record. At this stage, it is well-settled that once a cheque is admittedly issued by an accused and the same is presented and dishonoured, a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act arises in favour of the holder of the cheque, namely, that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. This presumption, however, is rebuttable in nature, and the burden lies upon the accused to place materials or adduce evidence to show that no such legally enforceable debt or liability existed. 5. Whether the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a legally recoverable debt, or whether it was merely issued by way of security in the course of the employment relationship, is a disputed question of fact which can be determined only during the course of trial - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38565 CRL.P No. 11205 of 2025 upon appreciation of evidence. It is also well recognized in law that even a cheque issued as security, if dishonoured upon presentation, may in certain circumstances attract the rigour of Section 138 of the NI Act, subject to proof of existence of legally recoverable liability on the date of its presentation. Such an enquiry, however, falls squarely within the domain of the learned Magistrate and cannot be undertaken by this Court at the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not merit interference at this juncture. The contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the nature and purpose of issuance of the cheque are matters that require adjudication at trial, where the petitioner will have ample opportunity to rebut the presumption by leading appropriate evidence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38565 CRL.P No. 11205 of 2025 Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9