Dismissed¶61

Sri.K.N. Keshvegowda v. Sri K N Revegowda

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2025CRL.P/3292/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (J.M.Khazi, J.), 04-06-2025, CRL.P 3292/2023 — S.482 Cr.P.C quashing petition against S.138 NI Act prosecution (C.C.No.3832/2022) rejected. Hand loan Rs.20 lakhs between brothers; cheque dt.25.07.2022 for Rs.7 lakhs dishonoured on stop payment; s.139 presumption in complainant's favour, initial rebuttal burden on accused; blank-cheque/sale-decel claim and non-disclosure of relationship are trial-stage disputed facts; no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

In view of the prima facie material and the existence of disputed facts, this is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused; such disputed facts are required to be agitated at trial, and accordingly the petition fails. ¶59

Sri.K.N. Keshvegowda Vs Sri K N Revegowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner (accused) in C.C.No.3832/2022 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

Court's answer

¶59

Ratio / Principle

Since the subject cheque is drawn on the accused's own account, bears his signature and was dishonoured on the ground of stop payment instructions, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act operates in favour of the complainant, placing the initial burden on the accused to rebut it.

¶59

Key takeaways

The non-disclosure in the complaint of the fact that the complainant and the accused are brothers is a matter for appreciation of evidence at trial rather than a ground for quashing.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C by the accused seeking quashing of prosecution in C.C.No.3832/2022 (S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act) pending before Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Periyapatna. Complainant, the accused's brother, alleged a hand loan of Rs.20 lakhs paid in instalments to the accused and his wife; after part repayments, a post-dated cheque dated 25.07.2022 for Rs.7 lakhs drawn on the accused's account was dishonoured on 'stop payment instructions', and legal notice drew no reply. Accused pleaded the cheque was a blank signed cheque given towards a land purchase, which was lost, prompting the stop payment instructions. Court held: non-disclosure of the fraternal relationship is a matter for appreciation of evidence; the s.139 N.I. Act presumption operates in favour of the complainant given the signature and stop-payment dishonour, casting the initial rebuttal burden on the accused; these disputed facts cannot be resolved in a S.482 petition; prima facie material existed. Petition rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18825 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3292 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.K.N. KESHVEGOWDA S/O LATE K.B. NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED RANG FORESTER, R/AT NANDIPURA-RAMENAHALLI VILLAGE, KODLIPETE HOBLI, SOMAVARAPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571231

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.P.M.GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

SRI.SIDDAMALLAPPA.P.M, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI K N REVEGOWDA S/O LATE K.B.NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KERAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KODLIPETE HOBLI, SOMAVARAPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571231

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR G M, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CRIMINAL PROSECUTION INITIATED IN C.C.NO.3832/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT OF IPC NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:18825 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

J.M.F.C., PERIYAPATNA AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,

¶27

petitioner who is accused before the trial court is seeking

¶28

for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated against him

¶29

in C.C.No.3832/2022 for the offence punishable under

¶30

Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶31

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial court.

¶32

Complainant and accused are brothers. Complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that accused borrowed sum of ₹20 lakhs from him i.e, complainant has paid a sum of ₹12 lakhs in three instalments through cheque to the account of wife of accused. Similarly, he has paid a total sum of ₹8

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:18825 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

lakhs to the accused by way of transferring the amount to

¶37

his account in two instalments. Towards repayment of the same, accused transferred a sum of ₹3 lakhs to complainant's account and paid ₹2,50,000/- through cash and paid a sum of ₹2,15,000/- through cheque. When complainant insisted upon accused to pay the balance, he issued a post dated 25.07.2022 for ₹7 lakhs. On the due date when complainant presented the said cheque for realisation, it was returned dishonoured on the ground of "Stop payment instructions". After issue of legal notice and on the failure of accused to comply with the said notice and also to send any reply, complaint is filed.

¶38

Accused is seeking quashing of the said proceedings contending that in the complaint, the complainant has not disclosed the fact that he and accused are brothers. Accused has purchased land in Sy.No.19/4 measuring 3 acres 59 cents and had issued the subject cheque which was blank except the signature of accused. The purchasers were required to fill up the blanks

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18825 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

according to their convenience. However, it was lost and

¶42

the said fact is noted in the sale deed. Therefore, immediately accused gave "Stop payment instructions" to the bank. The complainant taking advantage of the same

¶43

has filled it and presented for encashment and on its dishonour has filed a false complaint. It was not issued to the complainant towards repayment of any debt or liability. The impugned order is not sustainable, not maintainable. It is opposed to law, facts and probability of the case. It is highly capricious, perverse, illegal and bad in law. It is arbitrary and suffers for want of proper and convincing reasons. It is reasonable and erroneous and liable to be set aside and hence the petition.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant submitted that complainant advanced loan of ₹20 lakhs to the accused by way of transfer to his account as well as to the account of his wife. Though he made few partial payments, the subject cheque for ₹7 lakhs came to be dishonoured on the ground of "Stop payment

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18825 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

instructions". Though legal notice was duly served on the accused, he has not chosen to send reply and therefore complaint is filed. In the light of the presumption under section 139 of the N.I Act, but initial burden is on the

¶48

accused to rebut the same and prove that the said cheque was not issued towards repayment of any legally recoverable, debt or liability, after which the burden would shift on the complainant to prove his case. Even though in the sale deed, there is a reference that the subject cheque was issued to the purchaser and it is lost, it is for the accused to prove the same. These disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the light

¶49

of the prima facie material to proceed against the accused, this petition is maintainable and pray to dismiss the same.

¶50

Heard arguments and perused the record. According to the accused, he and complainant are brothers. It is true that in the complaint, the said fact is not forthcoming. Whether it is going to the root of the complainant's case is a matter for appreciation of

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18825 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

evidence. It is the definite case of the complainant that he

¶54

has advanced hand loan of ₹20 lakhs to the accused in instalments and all the payments are made through transfer to the account of accused and his wife and in fact, part payments have been made by the accused. When the subject cheque was presented, it was dishonoured giving rise to the cause of action for the complaint.

¶55

The accuse has produced copy of the sale deed through which he has purchased landed property. There is a recital in the Sale deed that the subject cheque for a sum of ₹7,00,000/- was issued to the Seller and it is lost and therefore complainant has issued stop payment instructions. In the present petition, the accused has pleaded that a blank signed cheque was issued to the purchaser. In the light of the fact that, according to the complainant, the entire hand loan in a sum of ₹20 lakhs were paid to the accused and his wife in instalments through cheque/account transfer, it is for the accused to explain the same. Similarly, having regard to the fact that

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:18825 CRL.P No. 3292 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

the subject cheque is drawn on the account of the accused and it bear his signature and is dishonoured on the ground of stop payment instructions, presumption and under Section 139 of N.I. Act is operating in favour of the complainant, placing the initial burden on the accused to rebut the same. These are all the disputed facts which are required to be agitated at the trial. In the light of the prime facie material, this is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) Petition filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.

¶62

(ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail.

¶63

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶64

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri.K.N. Keshvegowda v. Sri K N Revegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.N. Keshvegowda v. Sri K N Revegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Munavar Sultana Vs Mr.Rahamath Khan @ Rahamathulla Khan

Smt Kavitha K Gowda Vs Sri M Kempanna

Sri Narayanrao Vs Smt Alkavatibai

A Venkateshappa Vs Somashekar R

Sri Thimmaiah H E Vs Sri B Ravindra Singh

Sri M Devaraj Vs Smt Rathna