ORDER :

The petitioners in both these petitions are the accused in C.C.No.2871/2014, pending in the Court of learned XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘trial Court’), for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘N.I. Act’). Seeking quashing of the said criminal case pending against them, the accused have approached this Court. The present respondent (common in both petitions) is the complainant in the trial Court.

2. The summary of the case of the complainant in the trial Court is that he is acquainted with the accused who are the members of Jatti family and doing various business. At the request of the accused, he lent a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 30.11.2007 to respondent No.1 before the trial Court and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the same respondent on 30.1.2008 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 before the trial Court on 1.3.2008 and another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the same respondent No.2 on 1.4.2008. The respondents/accused had agreed to repay the said loan amount together with interest thereupon at 2% per month. Thus a total sum of Rs.5 lakhs was lent to them. The accused had also issued three cheques to him duly signed, however the contents were not filled. The accused/respondents paid the interest till November 2008 and thereafter, they postponed the payment of interest amount, so also, the principle amount despite several demands made by the complainant. However, Sri D.B. Jatti, Head of Jatti business concern, on behalf of the respondents, informed on 15.7.2009, admitting the entire liability of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and the interest thereupon and remitted an amount of Rs.75,000/- through a bank cheque bearing No.210033, dated 10.3.2010, drawn on State Bank of India, St.Marks Road, Bengaluru. The cheques were drawn by respondent No.3 before the trial Court. Since the respondents did not clear the debt and did not pay the up to-date interest, the complainant filled the date, month and year as 12.8.2013 in the cheques, totaling into a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and presented them for realisation. However, all the three cheques came to be returned with a banker’s endorsement as ‘Account closed’. It is thereafter, after causing a legal notice under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant proceeded to initiate a criminal case against them in the trial Court in C.C.No.2871/2014. The said case is now said to be at the stage of recording of the evidence where the complainant is already said to have led his evidence.

3. The respondent herein is being represented by his learned counsel.

4. The trial Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court.

5. Though the matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent from both side, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.

6. Heard the arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before the Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in her brief argument mainly canvassed only one point that admittedly the alleged loan was in April 2008, as such, on the date of presentation of the cheques, the debts were barred by limitation, as such, Section 138 of N.I.Act is not attracted. She further submitted that Exs.P-19 and P-20 marked by the complainant in his evidence as PW-1 are concocted and fabricated documents.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent in his argument submitted that when admittedly the blank cheques were issued by the accused to the complainant, the complainant has the authority to fill the same as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar, reported in (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40. Accordingly, after duly intimating the respondent/accused, the complainant has filled the cheques only towards the principle amount and has presented them. He further submitted that the accused have acknowledged their debt vide their letter at Ex.P-19 which was received by the complainant by Post