- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32504 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8814 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S TRICOLOUR INVESTMENT AND PROPERTIES LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS PAWAN AND NAGENDRA NO.13/1. 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, MYSURU. 2. MR. PAWAN C.M MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S TRICOLOUR INVESTMENT AND PROPERTIES LTD., NO.13/1. 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, MYSURU. 3. MR. NAGENDRA MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S TRICOLOUR INVESTMENT AND PROPERTIES LTD., NO.13/1. 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, MYSURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.NEHRU, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KRISHNA W/O SIVAPRASAD MANTRAVADI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.001, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32504 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2025 A.R.S. SUNSHINE, SITE NO.4, TRINITY COMPLEX, SOMPURA, SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 562 125. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ANEKAL IN CC.NO.7411/2021 AND THE ORDER OF JUDGEMENT DATED 06.06.2025, PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.5005/2024 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S. 311 R/W 91 OF CR.PC EXAMINE MR.SHIVAPRASAD MANTRAVADI AS COURT WITNESS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners/accused are aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate passed on an application filed under Section 311 read with 91 of Cr.P.C. and confirmed by the revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.5005/2024. 2. The respondent/complainant has instituted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The present petitioner, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32504 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2025 who is arrayed as the accused, has set up a defence that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability and that the cheque in question was never issued in favour of the respondent/complainant. According to the accused, the said cheque had been handed over to one Sivaprasad Mantravadi, who happens to be the husband of respondent No.2/complainant. On that premise, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of witness summons to examine the said Sivaprasad. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the application on the ground that the evidence of Sivaprasad is not germane to the controversy, and the said order was confirmed by the Revisional Court. 3. In the context of a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is a settled principle that there is a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt or liability. The burden, therefore, shifts on the accused to rebut such presumption by leading cogent evidence. In the present case, the accused themselves - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32504 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2025 have admitted that the cheque was handed over to the husband of the complainant. Such an admission only strengthens the obligation on the accused to adduce rebuttal evidence to establish that there was neither any legally enforceable debt due to the complainant nor any transaction between them. This rebuttal has to be worked out by the accused by leading appropriate defence evidence during trial, and not by attempting to summon witnesses whose evidence has no bearing on the issue. 4. Both the Courts below, upon due appreciation of the application and the defence set up, have rightly concluded that the proposed evidence of Sivaprasad would not in any manner assist the accused in dislodging the statutory presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Once a cheque is presented by the complainant and the foundational requirements under Section 138 are satisfied, the legal consequences must follow, subject to the accused successfully rebutting the presumption. The opportunity for the accused is thus limited to adducing such rebuttal evidence, and the rejection of the application under Section 311 cannot be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32504 CRL.P No. 8814 of 2025 said to suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. 5. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6