CHAITHRA A v. NONE

(BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2322/2025 REGISTERED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C MYSORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.22/2025 AND ALL ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. IN CRL.P NO. 7733/2025 BETWEEN: H. N. MANJUNATH S/O LATE H V NAGARAJU AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2438, NEAR WATER TANK BOGADI VILLAGE, MYSORE - 570 026 PROPRIETOR OF M/S DURGA SAWMILL AND WOOD PRODUCTS, NO.361 HEBBALU INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSORE 570016 (BY SMT. VINITHA P.C, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR AND: NITHIN DEVOOR S/O DEVOOR B B, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HIG-4 KHB COLONY, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE -570023 (BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B, ADVOCATE) ...RESPONDENT PRAYING TO QUASH THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2320/2025 REGISTERED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE FOR THE O/P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.20/2025 AND ALL ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE IN CRL.P NO. 7740/2025 BETWEEN: H. N. MANJUNATH S/O LATE H V NAGARAJU AGED 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 2438 NEAR WATER TANK, BOGADI VILLAGE MYSORE - 570026 PROPRIETOR OF M/S DURGA SAWMILL AND WOOD PRODUCTS NO.361, HEBBALU INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSORE - 570016 (BY SMT. VINITHA P.C, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR AND: NITHIN DEVOOR S/O DEVOOR B B AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT HIG-4 KHB COLONY, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE - 570023 (BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B, ADVOCATE) ...RESPONDENT PRAYING TO QUASH THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2323/2025 REGISTERED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C MYSORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.23/2025 AND ALL ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE IN CRL.P NO. 7776/2025 BETWEEN: H N MANJUNATH S/O LATE H V NAGARAJU, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO 2438, NEAR WATER TANK BOGADI VILLAGE, MYSORE 570026 PROPRIETOR OF M/S DURGA SAWMILL AND WOOD PRODUCTS, NO 361, HEBBALU INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSORE - 570 016. (BY SMT. VINITHA P.C, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR AND: NITHIN DEVOOR S/O DEVOOR B B, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HIG-4, KHB COLONY 2ND STAGE, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE 570023 (BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B, ADVOCATE) ...RESPONDENT PRAYING TO QUASH THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2316/2025 REGISTERED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.16/2025 AND ALL ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE IN CRL.P NO. 7788/2025 BETWEEN: H. N. MANJUNATH S/O LATE H V NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.2438, NEAR WATER TANK, BOGADI VILLAGE, MYSORE - 570 026 PROPRIETOR OF M/S DURGA SAWMILL AND WOOD PRODUCTS, NO.361, HEBBALU INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSORE - 570 016. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. VINITHA P.C, ADVOCATE) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR AND: NITHIN DEVOOR S/O DEVOOR B B , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HIG-4, KHB COLONY, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE-570023 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.2321/2025 REGISTERED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR.NO.21/2025 AND ALL ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. IN CRL.P NO. 7798/2025 BETWEEN: H N MANJUNATH S/O LATE H V NAGARAJU, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO 2438 NEAR WATER TANK BOGADI VILLAGE, MYSORE - 570 026 PROPRIETOR OF M/S DURGA SAWMILL AND WOOD PRODUCTS, NO 361, HEBBALU INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSORE 570016 ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. VINITHA P.C, ADVOCATE) AND: NITHIN DEVOOR S/O DEVOOR B B, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HC-KAR - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS R/AT HIG 4, KHB COLONY, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE - 570 023 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.2318/2025 REGISTERED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR.NO.18/2025 AND ALL ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. IN CRL.P NO. 7834/2025 BETWEEN: H. N. MANJUNATH S/O LATE H V NAGARAJU, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2438, NEAR WATER TANK, BOGADI VILLAGE, MYSORE - 570026. PROPRIETOR OF M/S DURGA SAWMILL AND WOOD PRODUCTS, NO. 361, HEBBALU INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSORE - 570016. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. VINITHA P.C, ADVOCATE) AND: NITHIN DEVOOR S/O DEVOOR B B AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HIG 4, KHB COLONY, 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE - 570023. HC-KAR - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B, ADVOCATE) PRAYING TO QUASH THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2324/2025 REGISTERED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C MYSORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.24/2025 AND ALL ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE IN CRL.P NO. 7847/2025 BETWEEN: H. N. MANJUNATH S/O LATE HV NAGARAJU AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.2438, NEAR WATER TANK BOGADI VILLAGE, MYSORE- 570026 PROPRIETOR OF M/S DURGA SAWMILL AND WOOD PRODUICTS, NO.361 HEBBALU INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSORE -570016 ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. VINITHA P.C, ADVOCATE) AND: NITHIN DEVOOR S/O DEVOOR B B AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT HIG-4, KHB COLONY 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE- 570023 ...RESPONDENT - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR (BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M.B, ADVOCATE) PRAYING TO QUASH THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.2317/2025 REGISTERED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 138 OF N.I. ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.17/2025 AND ALL ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THE THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER These petitions are between the same parties and since common issue is involved in all these cases, all are taken up together for final disposal.

#2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:- The respondent/complainant has instituted in all nine private complaints against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 223 of the BNSS. The substance of the allegation in all these complaints is that the complainant had initially entered into a partnership - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR deed with the accused and, subsequently, an agreement was executed on 06.01.2021. Under this agreement, complainant claims to have invested a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- and, in addition thereto, a further sum of Rs.28,00,000/-. It is the complainant’s case that, in all, he advanced a financial assistance of Rs.50,00,000/- to the accused at different intervals, which liability the accused is said to have acknowledged.

#3. The complainant further asserts that, despite repeated demands, the accused failed to repay the amounts advanced and, in discharge of the said liability, issued nine cheques, drawn on the Union Bank of India, Bogadhi Branch, Mysore and Canara Bank, Hinkal Branch, Mysore. On presentation, however, each of these cheques came to be dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. Consequently, the complainant was constrained to separate statutory notices in respect of each cheque. Despite service of such notices, the petitioner/accused failed to comply, but instead issued a reply notice disputing the liability. Thereafter, the complainant instituted the present nine - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR complaints under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act read with Section 223 of the BNSS.

#4. The learned Magistrate, on recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioner/accused.

#5. Upon receipt of summons, the petitioner/accused has preferred the present nine petitions seeking quashing of the proceedings. The grounds urged in all these petitions are common.

#6. Learned counsel appearing petitioner/accused has vehemently contended provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act are not attracted in the present case, as the alleged liability arises out of an enforcement of a contractual arrangement and not a legally enforceable debt or liability. She further submits that the alleged payments advanced by the complainant were made in cash, and hence the underlying transactions are not legal, thereby excluding the applicability of Section 138 of the NI Act. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR

#7. Counsel has further contended, with emphasis, that the details of the cheques in question are as follows: C.C. No. 2316/2025 (PCR No. 16/2025): Cheque No. 012253 dated 31.10.2024 for Rs. 6 lakhs (Union Bank of India, Bogadhi Branch). C.C. No. 2317/2025 (PCR No. 17/2025): Cheque No. 012258 dated 04.11.2024 for Rs. 5 lakhs (Union Bank of India, Bogadhi Branch). C.C. No. 2318/2025 (PCR No. 18/2025): Cheque No. 992885 dated 24.10.2024 for Rs. 7 lakhs (Canara Bank, Hinkal Branch). C.C. No. 2319/2025 (PCR No. 19/2025): Cheque No. 992886 dated 24.10.2024 for Rs. 7 lakhs (Canara Bank, Hinkal Branch). C.C. No. 2320/2025 (PCR No. 20/2025): Cheque No. 012254 dated 04.11.2024 for Rs. 8 lakhs (Union Bank of India, Bogadhi Branch). C.C. No. 2321/2025 (PCR No. 21/2025): Cheque No. 037071 dated 28.10.2024 for Rs. 4 lakhs (Union Bank of India, Bogadhi Branch). C.C. No. 2322/2025 (PCR No. 22/2025): Cheque No. 037069 dated 31.10.2024 for Rs. 4 lakhs (Union Bank of India, Bogadhi Branch). C.C. No. 2323/2025 (PCR No. 23/2025): Cheque No. 012257 dated 28.10.2024 for - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR Rs. 8 lakhs (Union Bank of India, Bogadhi Branch). C.C. No. 2324/2025 (PCR No. 24/2025): Cheque No. 037070 dated 28.10.2024 for Rs. 4 lakhs (Union Bank of India, Bogadhi Branch).

#8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the alleged investment or loan said to have been advanced by the complainant does not correspond with either the final demand made or with the figures reflected in the private complaint.

#9. She has further questioned the validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance. It is her contention that the order of cognizance is not a speaking order, inasmuch as it fails to advert to and consider several material discrepancies appearing the complaint, including inconsistency between the amount alleged to have been invested, the amount claimed in the demand notice, and the amount reflected in the cheque. On this ground alone, she submits, the proceedings in the respective criminal case numbers stand vitiated. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR

#10. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel (Criminal Appeal No.1497/2022). Relying upon the said decision, it is contended that a careful reading of the entire complaint averments does not disclose the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, which is a sine qua non for invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to her, this crucial aspect has not been adverted to by the Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance. She has also pointed out that while the alleged transaction is said to have taken place in the year 2019, the cheque relied upon by the complainant is of the year 2024, and this glaring inconsistency has also not been considered by the Magistrate while proceeding to take cognizance.

#11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, while reiterating the stand taken in the statement of objections, has sought to justify the order of cognizance. He would submit that the accused has set up a defence to the effect that the cheques belonging to the firm were misused by - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR the complainant. According to him, if such a plea is to be accepted, it would be incumbent upon the accused to explain how exactly the cheques were misused, under what circumstances they came the possession of complainant, and what action the accused contemplated or initiated upon discovering that the cheques had been allegedly stolen or misappropriated. He points out that no such action was taken by the accused, and hence the defence now raised is nothing but an afterthought. Even otherwise, he would contend, such a defence is a matter of evidence and can only be tested during the course of a full-fledged trial and not at the stage of cognizance.

#12. Insofar as the order of cognizance is concerned, learned counsel would submit that the Magistrate has indeed recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, adverted to the supporting documents placed on record, and thereafter passed a considered order taking cognizance of the offences alleged. Therefore, according to him, the order of cognizance suffers from no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR In support of this contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Dashrathbhai Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel (Criminal Appeal No.1497/2022) Trikambhai Patel v. (2) A.V.Murthy v. B.S.Nagabasavanna reported (2002) 2 SCC 642 (3) Kalamani Tex and Another v. P.Balasubraamanian reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 (4) Shiv Kumar alias Jawahar Saraf v. Ramavtar Agarwal reported in (2020) 12 SCC 500 (5) Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 (6) Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513 (7) Hiten P.Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee reported in (2001) 6 SCC 16 (8) ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer and Another reported in (2002) 6 SCC 426 (9) Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148 (10) Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda reported (2018) 8 SCC 165 (11) S.Krishnamoorthy v. Chellammal reported (2015) 14 SCC 559 (12) M.M.T.C. Ltd and Another v. MEDCHL Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 234 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR (13) S.Natarajan v. Sama Dharman and Another reported in (2021) 6 SCC 413

#13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. The Court has also perused the complaint and the materials placed on record, and has adverted to the objections filed by the complainant in each of the petitions. Further, this Court has given its anxious consideration to the authorities relied upon by both sides, including the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the complainant.

#14. On a careful examination of the records, the short point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the grounds urged by the petitioners in all these petitions which are admittedly common in nature can be gone into while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

#15. It is to be noted that the petitioners have raised several contentions such as: whether a partnership deed existed and, if so, whether it was subsequently dissolved; whether the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR complainant advanced the monies as an “investment” or whether they were borrowed by the accused as a “loan”; whether the actual amount paid by the complainant was Rs.58,00,000/- as alleged, or Rs.50,00,000/- as admitted in parts of the record; and further, whether the amounts reflected in the nine cheques forming the basis of the nine separate complaints are consistent with the overall claim of Rs.50,00,000/- said to have been advanced by the complainant. All these are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such issues necessarily call for appreciation of evidence and have to be established by the parties during trial before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

#16. It is well settled through a catena of judgments of this Court and of the Hon’ble Apex Court that once a cheque is issued by an accused and, upon presentation to the bank, it is returned unpaid with the endorsement “insufficient funds”, Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act immediately creates a statutory presumption in favour of the holder/drawee. This presumption is to the effect that the cheque was issued in - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden, therefore, shifts to the accused to rebut the said presumption by leading cogent rebuttal evidence. Whether such presumption stands displaced depends on the evidence led during trial. In the present case, the argument of the petitioners that the underlying transaction pertains to the year 2019 whereas the cheques are dated 2024, and therefore the complaints are not maintainable, itself a disputed factual issue. Such contentions, by their very nature, cannot be examined by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but must be tested before the learned Magistrate at the time of trial.

#17. The further contention of the petitioners that the Magistrate did not properly examine the materials before taking cognizance also does not merit acceptance. The records reveal that the learned Magistrate, while entertaining nine independent private complaints, has permitted the complainant to record his sworn statement. Upon recording such sworn statement, and upon examining the supporting materials including dishonoured cheques returned with endorsements of insufficiency of funds, the learned Magistrate has applied his - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR mind and thereafter proceeded to take cognizance of the offences alleged. It is a well-settled principle of law that, at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is not expected to write an elaborate or exhaustive order assigning detailed reasons as if deciding the case on merits. What is required is an indication of application of mind to the materials placed before the Court, which in the present case is evident from the order of cognizance preceded by the sworn statement. Therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to the order of the Magistrate in this regard.

#18. In view of the above discussion, and having regard to the fact that the petitioners have raised multiple complex contentions relating to disputed questions of fact, this Court is of the considered opinion that such issues cannot be examined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The arguments that the transactions were illegal, or that the cheques were misused by the complainant without the knowledge and consent of the accused, are all matters which can only be adjudicated upon evidence being led before the trial Court. The burden lies upon the accused to substantiate such allegations during trial, and - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:37873 CRL.P No. 7813 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 7681 of 2025 CRL.P No. 7733 of 2025 AND 6 OTHERS HC-KAR they are at liberty to raise all these defences in the course of the proceedings in the nine pending private complaints.

#19. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, and reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise all permissible grounds in their defence before the trial Court, this Court finds no merit in the present petitions. Accordingly, all these petitions stand dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16