Accused sought quashing of Section 138 NI Act complaint proceedings, claiming the cheque was issued to another person and misused. Court held the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and must be addressed by the accused at trial, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2025:KHC:34159 CRL.P No. 12264 of 2025
HC-KAR
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:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESHA .K.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…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.
NC: 2025:KHC:34159 CRL.P No. 12264 of 2025
HC-KAR
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").
HC-KAR
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.
dismissed.
Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62
1 issue framed by the court
Should proceedings under Section 138 NI Act be quashed where the petitioner claims the cheque was issued to a third party and misused?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Gopalakrishna .K
M/s Preethi Travels Pvt Ltd rep by its Managing Director Mr. Nagaraju. C
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
