(BY SRI. PARTHA SARATHI S.G., ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. P. KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE)

R. VEENA ASHWATHNARAYAN PROPRIETRIX, VIGNESH UTILITY SERVICES, DOOR NO.-101, GROUND FLOOR, 4TH BLOSSOM APARTMENTS, NO.65, 13TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 075 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER, SRI. KARUNAKARAN .G. S/O GOPAL, NO.34, 01ST MAIN ROAD, SYNDICATE BANK BUILDING, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020. Location: high court of karnataka (BY SRI. PARTHA SARATHI S.G., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: RAVEENDRA B.S. R/AT NO.2, GROUND FLOOR, ESCALLA PARK VIEW, 5TH CROSS, VENKATADRI LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 076. (BY SRI. P. KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.11609/2021 PENDING BEFORE XII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU CITY. - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:49426 CRL.P No. 236 of 2022 THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Even though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

Petitioner being the accused in CC No.11609/2021 on the file of the learned XII Additional SCJ and ACMM, Bengalur City, for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short NI Act) is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent has filed the private complaint in PCR No.5011/2021 against the petitioner alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner had taken hand loan of Rs.90,00,000/- for improving his business. Towards repayment of the same, the petitioner had issued two different cheques. One of the cheque is for Rs.60,00,000/- dated 01.03.2021. When the cheque was presented for encashment, same was dishonored as there was insufficient fund in the account of the accused. Legal notice was - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49426 CRL.P No. 236 of 2022 issued to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner had not repaid the cheque amount and therefore, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Accordingly, the private complaint came to be filed. The complainant requested the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, registered CC No.11609/2021 and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. In the meantime, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

Heard Sri. Partha Sarathi.S.G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.Karunakar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?” - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49426 CRL.P No. 236 of 2022 My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S

The petitioner is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner while addressing the arguments specifically contended that the respondent has stolen the cheque in question and presented it for encashment and in that regard, he has filed a complaint against the respondent, which is being tried by the Trial Court in CC No.10685/2021 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. But strangely, in paragraph 16 of the petition before this Court, petitioner contended that respondent forcibly collected cheque by exercising undue influence and coercion and thereby committed cheating. This inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner is not appealing to the Court. Moreover, the facts narrated in the petition discloses that the petitioner is not disputing that the cheque belongs to his bank account and it bears his signature. Once the petitioner admits issuance of cheque with his signature, presumption under Section 139 of NI Act would arise and it is for the accused to rebut the - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49426 CRL.P No. 236 of 2022 presumption. Under such circumstanced, I do not find any merits in the petition.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the main petition pending IAs stands disposed off. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28