Karnataka High Court
Mr. Prashant Kumar vs Bajaj Finance Limited on 17 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37171
CRL.P No. 8736 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8736 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. PRASHANT KUMAR
S/O MR. SHEETAL PRASAD JHA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT ANAND VIHAR COLONY,
AT SAHBAJPUR BHIKHANOUR FACTORY
UMANAGAR S.O DISTRICT
MUZZAFARPUR, BIHAR - 842 004
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MEENAKSHI V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED
REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE
Digitally signed
by AT MUMBAI PUNE ROAD
SHARADAVANI AKURDI, PUNE - 411 035
B
Location: High MAHARASHTRA
Court of
Karnataka AND HAVING A BRANCH OFFICE AT
801 AND 805, 8TH FLOOR,
PRESTIGE TOWERS, RESIDENCY ROD
BANGLAORE - 25
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL
AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. MAHANTESH B J
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
PH NO.9738231711
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37171
CRL.P No. 8736 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CC NO.4167/2024 ON THE FILE OF XIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU
(SCCH-10) FILED U/S 138 OF N.I ACT, 1881.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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.4167/2024 on the ground
that the statutory notice contemplated under Section 138(b) of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") was
not duly served upon the petitioner. It is contended that the
legal notice was dispatched to an incorrect address, namely,
the address of an auction purchaser, despite the complainant
being fully aware that the petitioner/accused was not residing
at the said premises. On this basis, it is urged that there is no
compliance with the mandatory requirement of service of
notice, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.
NC: 2025:KHC:37171
HC-KAR
2. Facts leading to the filing of the petition;
The respondent/complainant instituted a private
complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, alleging commission of an offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Act. After recording the sworn statement of
the complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence and issued summons to the petitioner/accused.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner entered appearance before the
trial court and was enlarged on bail.
3. The present petition has been filed primarily on the
premise that there is no due compliance with Section 138(b) of
the Act. The petitioner has further attempted to persuade this
Court by contending that the complaint has been initiated by
playing fraud on the court, despite the pendency of proceedings
under the SARFAESI Act between the petitioner and the
respondent-bank.
4. This Court, in a catena of judgments, has consistently
held that issues relating to (i) non-service or improper service
of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Act, (ii)
allegations of fraud played upon the court to secure issuance of
NC: 2025:KHC:37171
HC-KAR
summons, and (iii) the existence or otherwise of a legally
enforceable debt, are all disputed questions of fact. Such
matters can appropriately be adjudicated only by the trial court
upon appreciation of evidence led by both parties.
5. The strong objection urged on behalf of the petitioner
that there was no legally recoverable debt or liability, and
therefore the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable, cannot be accepted at this preliminary stage.
Once a complaint under Section 138 of the Act is filed
accompanied by the dishonoured cheque, a statutory
presumption under Section 139 of the Act arises in favour of
the complainant regarding the existence of an antecedent debt
or liability. It is for the accused to lead rebuttal evidence to
displace such presumption.
6. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not expected to
embark upon a roving inquiry into disputed facts or evaluate
evidence at the threshold. Any such exercise would amount to
exceeding the scope of inherent powers and trenching upon the
domain of the trial court.
NC: 2025:KHC:37171
HC-KAR
7. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that no case is made out for quashing the proceedings
in C.C. No.4167/2024 at this stage. Liberty, however, is
reserved to the petitioner to raise all permissible contentions
before the trial court, to adduce rebuttal evidence, and to
substantiate the grounds urged in the present petition in the
course of trial.
With these observations, the criminal petition stands
dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also
disposed of in terms of this order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
