Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27687
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.Nagaprasanna, J
K. Praveen – Appellant
Versus
G.R. Pradeep – Respondent
CRL.P No. 4257 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Nataraju
For the Respondents: N. Vageesha
When a cheque and its signature are admitted, defenses claiming the instrument was provided as security involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in summary quashing proceedings and must be determined through evidence at trial.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner contended that the cheques in question were issued merely as security and that the business venture had not commenced, implying no liability existed. The respondent contended that funds were misappropriated and the dishonour of the cheques warranted legal action. The Court observed that once the execution and signatures on the cheques are admitted, any claim regarding the security nature of the instrument involves disputed questions of fact which must be adjudicated through evidence at trial. The court framed the issue as to whether the High Court should invoke its inherent powers to quash proceedings when the underlying nature of the cheque is a matter of factual dispute. The court determined that the petitioner’s defence regarding the cheques being issued 'as security' does not constitute sufficient grounds for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482/528, as such claims require evidentiary proof. The ratio decidendi holds that where a cheque’s execution and signature are admitted, issues concerning the circumstances of its issuance must be left for determination by the trial court during evidence, and are not appropriate for summary intervention under inherent jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed and the proceedings are ordered to continue.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts regarding the cheque dishonour dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties argument regarding the nature of the cheque as security versus liability. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court establishes that disputed factual defenses regarding security cheques must be determined at trial. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.30620/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XV ADDL CJM BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner/accused is before the Court calling in question the entire proceedings in C.C.No.30620/2025 registered for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Heard Sri. P. Nataraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. N. Vageesha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is the accused, the respondent is the complainant. The two enter into an agreement. In furtherance of an agreement, the petitioner is said to have handed over several cheques to the respondent/complainant. The partnership having gone wrong, cheques are presented for its realisation and two of them are said to have been dishonoured, which form the subject matter of the proceedings before the concerned Court in C.C.No.30620/2025. The cognizance being taken on the said offence, the petitioner/accused is before this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the cheques were given as security. The business itself has not commenced for any amount to be defaulted by the accused or for the respondent to present the cheque that was rendered as a security.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would refute the submissions in contending that not a rupee has been paid to the respondent/complainant pursuant to the agreement and all the profit is swindled off by the accused and therefore, the respondent/complainant presented the cheques for its realization, which have been now dishonoured. The learned counsel submits that the cheques are admitted, the signature is admitted and it is for the evidence, for the concerned Court to draw its inference on the evidence that would be let in before it.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record, but they would not require any iteration. The petitioner and the respondent enter into a transaction through the agreement and in furtherance of the agreement, the petitioner issues several cheques, two of which form the subject matter of the present lis. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that it was given as a security. Even if the cheques are given as a security, it would be a matter of evidence before the concerned Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which was Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the earlier regime, would not be a remedy that would be available to the petitioner in the teeth of the disputed questions of fact with regard to why the cheque is rendered by the petitioner in favour of the respondent/complainant, once the cheque and the signatures are admitted, it becomes a matter of evidence.
8. Finding no merit, the petition stands disposed.
