- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31385 CRL.P No. 11700 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. 11700 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:31385 CRL.P No. 11700 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.1330/2024 RELATING TO THE PCR NO.215/2024 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 FINAL HEARING, 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.1330/2024, primarily referring to the averments made at para 2 of the private complaint filed in PCR.No.215/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act' for short). 2. Referring to the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the private complaint, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the alleged - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31385 CRL.P No. 11700 of 2025 loan transaction pleaded by the respondent/complainant is not one entered into with the petitioner/accused. On the contrary, it is urged that the transaction, if any, was with the petitioner’s wife, to whose account the complainant admittedly transferred the loan amounts. It is therefore contended that the issuance of the cheque leaves in question by the petitioner’s wife has been misused by the complainant, who has filed two separate private complaints in respect of the two cheques, though the petitioner himself has no liability under the said transaction. 3. In further support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced additional documents, including the statement of account maintained by the petitioner with HDFC Bank, Mandya Branch. Placing reliance upon these documents, he would submit that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, no amount is due or payable to the complainant, as the alleged hand loan borrowed has been fully repaid. According to him, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31385 CRL.P No. 11700 of 2025 entries reflected in the petitioner’s account corroborate the fact that the entire loan amount has already been discharged, and consequently, there exists no legally enforceable liability as against the petitioner/accused. 4. Learned counsel, while reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has strenuously argued that in view of the complainant’s own averments at paragraph 2 of the private complaint, the essential ingredient under Section 138 of the NI Act, namely the existence of a legally recoverable debt or liability, is clearly absent. He would therefore submit that the very foundation of the complaint is untenable, and continuation of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner would amount to gross abuse of process of law. 5. On these premises, learned counsel has attempted to persuade this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by contending that unless indulgence is granted, the petitioner would be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31385 CRL.P No. 11700 of 2025 subjected to unnecessary criminal prosecution despite the absence of a legally enforceable debt. He therefore prays for quashing of the proceedings initiated by the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 6. On careful consideration of the averments in the private complaint and the grounds urged in the present petition, it is noticed that the entire defence sought to be raised by the petitioner/accused essentially pertains to factual aspects and disputes, which are in the nature of a defence to be tested during the course of trial. This Court is mindful of the settled legal position that once a cheque is issued, presented, and dishonoured, a statutory presumption arises under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, unless the contrary is proved. Therefore, the grounds urged in the present petition, as well as the additional documents sought to be relied upon, can only form part of the petitioner’s defence during trial, and cannot be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31385 CRL.P No. 11700 of 2025 adjudicated at the stage of examining the maintainability of the complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. It is well settled through catena of decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is a presumption of law, distinct from a presumption of fact. Such presumption mandates the Court to presume that the cheque in question was issued for discharge of a subsisting liability, and the burden lies squarely on the accused to rebut the same by leading cogent rebuttal evidence. In the present case, the petitioner’s contention that the loan transaction was not with him but with his wife, and that the loan amount has been repaid, are matters which require substantiation through evidence during trial. This Court, while examining the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot at this stage evaluate or place reliance on the petitioner’s counter-documents to negate the statutory presumption. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to adduce rebuttal evidence - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31385 CRL.P No. 11700 of 2025 before the trial court to establish that no legally recoverable debt subsisted in his favour in light of the complainant’s averments in paragraph 2 of the private complaint. 8. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and stands dismissed. 9. All rival contentions between the parties are left open to be urged and considered during the trial proceedings. 10. It is further clarified that this Court has refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, and the trial Court shall adjudicate the matter strictly on the basis of evidence adduced by both parties. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45