- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34159 CRL.P No. 12264 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12264 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA .K S/O LATE KADA VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.42/2, 2ND CROSS BEHIND UNION BANK OF INDIA BALAJI LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE-560024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHA .K.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S PREETHI TRAVELS PVT LTD NO.111, SAPTHAGIRI 2ND MAIN NEAR SHARADHA SCHOOL AMRUTHANAGAR BANGALORE-560092 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. NAGARAJU. C …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CC.NO.24553/2024, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XXII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM, BENGALURU CITY (SCCH-24) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34159 CRL.P No. 12264 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 by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.24553/2024 for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1981 (for short "N.I. Act"). 2. The respondent/complainant has filed the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offenceS punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of N.I. Act. The respondent/complainant has alleged that the petitioner has availed hand loan and when demanded has issued a cheque and when presented, the same is returned with an endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer". Therefore, after issuing notice under Section 138(b) of N.I. Act, a private complaint is filed. 3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that this disputed cheque was never issued by the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34159 CRL.P No. 12264 of 2025 Petitioner claims that this cheque was infact issued to one Gayathri and the same is misused by respondent/complainant. Once a cheque is presented and the same is dishonoured, there is presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, which is a presumption of law as distinguishable from presumption of fact. Under Section 139 of N.I. Act, since there is a legal presumption, the cheque was issued for discharging of an antecedent liability. Since presumption is rebuttable, petitioner has to demonstrate that the cheque was never issued towards legally recoverable debt. It is also open for the petitioner to demonstrate that respondent/complainant being a private limited company, contrary to the provisions of the Companies Act, could not have lent hand loan. 4. Hence, reserving liberty, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62