K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA,J. - (1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 66/10 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Hosadurga
(2.) THE Respondent herein filed private complaint under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Petitioner herein alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') inter alia alleging that the Petitioner - accused availed hand loan of Rs. 3,80,000/ - from him on 6.4.2009 agreeing to repay the said amount within 4 months and for discharge of the said debt, he issued the cheque in question and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned unpaid with banker's endorsement "funds insufficient" and in spite of service of notice, the Petitioner - accused failed to pay the amount covered under the cheque. The learned Magistrate, on presentation of the complaint, took cognizance of the offence alleged and directed summons to the Petitioner herein. On receipt of the summons, the Petitioner has presented this petition inter alia contending that the complaint is a frivolous one inasmuch as there was no monetary transaction between the Petitioner and the Respondent and that the cheque in question along with other papers kept in a bag was lost while he was travelling in the bus from Neralakere to Hosadurga on 21.5.2007 and since he could not trace the said cheque, he sent an intimation to his tanker on 21.6.2007 not to honour the said cheque and thus the cheque in question was not issued to the complainant for discharge of debt or any liability. It is also the contention of the Petitioner that in respect of loss of bag containing cheques and other documents, a police complaint was also filed and that the complainant had no financial capacity to lend a substantial sum of Rs. 3,80,000/ - as contended by him in the complaint, therefore, it is just and proper to quash the proceedings. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. All the grounds urged in this petition and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before this Court are all in the nature of defence that may be put forth by the Petitioner - accused during the trial of the case. The matter is still at the stage of appearance before the learned Magistrate. The trial Court will have to appreciate the defence that may be put forth by the Petitioner -accused while disposing of the case on merits. Merely because the Petitioner - accused contends that there was no monetary transaction between him and the complainant and the cheque in question was lost while he was travelling in the bus, the criminal proceedings lodged for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot, be quashed by this Court by exercising the power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. There appears to be no serious dispute on the part of the Petitioner - accused that the cheque in question relates to the account held by him in the bank and it bears his signature. The question as to whether there was any monetary transaction between the complainant and the accused and as to whether the cheque in question was issued for the discharge of any such debt or liability are all matters which are required to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence that may be led by the parties. In this view of the matter, I find no ground to entertain this petition. Therefore, the petition is rejected.;