- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33520 CRL.P No. 8254 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8254 OF 2025 BETWEEN: KUMARI AKSHATA HIREMATH D/O. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S. HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 69/1, NANJAPPA, THINDLU, NEAR GOVT HOSPITAL, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU -560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVSHANKER, ADVOCATE) AND: RAMYAKRISHNAPPA S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.203, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, H. R. B. R LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.53354/2025, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE XXXIV ACJM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33520 CRL.P No. 8254 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.53354/2025 on the file of the XXXIV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The respondent–complainant has instituted a private complaint in PCR No.53372/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the present petitioner. The learned Magistrate, upon recording the sworn statement of the complainant, has proceeded to issue summons to the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the cognizance so taken by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending primarily - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33520 CRL.P No. 8254 of 2025 that there is no legally enforceable transaction between herself and the complainant and therefore, in the absence of a subsisting liability, the very initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complainant has misused cheques, which were not issued in his favour. It is contended that the petitioner had issued certain blank cheques in favour of one Anil and that the said Anil, in collusion with the complainant and another person by name Malai Kabiraj, has misused those cheques. It is further urged that in all six cheques have been misused and on their random presentation for encashment, the same were dishonoured, which ultimately led to the complainant instituting the present complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 5. The specific case of the petitioner is that there were no financial transactions with the complainant and to substantiate this contention, reliance is placed on a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33520 CRL.P No. 8254 of 2025 statement allegedly recorded by the police in connection with a prior complaint lodged by the petitioner regarding the missing cheques. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of the proceedings by contending that the very foundation of the complaint is false and baseless. 6. On a careful consideration of the grounds urged, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner’s contention at this stage. It is well settled that once a cheque is returned unpaid with a bank endorsement, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act comes into operation. This presumption is to the effect that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The law is equally clear that such presumption, though mandatory, is rebuttable. The burden squarely lies upon the accused to displace this presumption by adducing cogent rebuttal evidence. 7. The materials presently relied upon by the petitioner, such as the alleged police statement about the missing cheques, are matters of defence. Such contentions - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33520 CRL.P No. 8254 of 2025 necessarily require appreciation of evidence and cannot be examined by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The correctness or otherwise of the complainant’s version and the defence that the cheques were misused by third parties, are all questions which the petitioner must establish before the trial court by leading evidence in rebuttal. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that at the threshold stage, when the complainant has complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 138 of the NI Act and instituted the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the plea of absence of liability. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act operates in favour of the complainant and it is for the petitioner to place materials before the learned Magistrate during trial to rebut the said presumption. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, this Court finds no ground - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33520 CRL.P No. 8254 of 2025 to interfere in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10