- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9667 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9667 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O VENKATARAMANA SONNENAHALLI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR OF BUSINESS INDIA INC, R/AT FLAT NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, NO. 2109, SAI SHRUTHI ENCLAVE, SIR M VISHWESHWARAIAH 3RD BLOCK, OFF 80 FEET ROAD, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M.G, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SANTOSH T A S/O ARMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT. NISARGANAGARA, HALLIGATTU VILLAGE, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU - 571 216. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN COGNIZANCE IS TAKEN BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PONNAMPET IN PCR NO.31/2025 AND DATED 14.03.2025 IN CC NO.455/2025 FOR Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9667 of 2025 OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT IN ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION. 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.455/2025 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, 'Act'). 2. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the transaction pertains to the period between 2018 and 2021, whereas the private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”) has been instituted after a lapse of seven years and, therefore, is not maintainable in view of Section 138-A of the Act. The petitioner has further urged that the complainant failed to furnish bank statements and income- tax particulars at the time of filing the private complaint, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9667 of 2025 and on that ground also the complaint is liable to be quashed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have carefully perused the records placed on file. 4. On a meticulous examination of the private complaint and the documents annexed thereto, it is evident that the cheque in question, dated 10.10.2024, was issued in December 2024 for a sum of Rs.31,65,000- 00. The cheque, when presented for encashment in December 2024, was returned unpaid with the endorsement “Insufficient Funds.” The complainant thereafter issued a statutory notice on 28.01.2025, which was returned on 14.02.2025 with the postal endorsement “Unclaimed.” Consequently, the private complaint came to be filed on 06.03.2025. 5. If these facts are taken into account, it is clear that the complaint was lodged within one month of the receipt of the postal endorsement and is well within the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9667 of 2025 period of limitation prescribed under Section 142 of the Act. The petitioner’s contention that the cheque relates to transactions of the years 2018 to 2021, and that there is an unexplained delay of seven years, cannot be accepted. Once a cheque is issued in December 2024, there arises a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. It is for the petitioner to rebut this presumption by leading appropriate evidence during trial. 6. No infraction of the requirements under Sections 138-A, 138-B or 142 of the Act is made out. This Court, therefore, finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK/CT: BHK