IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARAWAD Dated the 3Qth day of N arch 2011 :BEFORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE : V.JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8449 / 2010 BETWEEN: Smt. Neelima, W/o Santosh Khandelwal, Age: Major, R/a 2nd Cross, Behind Telephone Exchange, M.N.Nagara, Hosapete-583 201. Petitioner (By Sri M.B.Gundawade for Sri Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, Advocate.) AND: Sri Amarnath.J, Age: Major, R/a Abhudava Building, 7th Cross, Bhagya Nagara, Belgaum. Respondent Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash C.C.No. 553/2010 registered on the file of the JMFC-IV Court, Belgaum. This petition coming on for admission this day, the court made the following ORDER Heard the petitioner’s counsel in respect of the prayer seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No. 553/2010 on the file of the J.M.F.C. IV Court, Belgaum, in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The case of the complainant in short is that, he was working as the Deputy Manager of the State Bank of Hyderabad and he had given hand loan to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioner issued a cheque drawn on Bank of India, Hosapete Branch, towards the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and the cheque, on being presented to the Bank, was returned with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. Therefore, after giving notice to the petitioner and the amount being not paid to the petitioner, a complaint was lodged under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 3. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that, the petitioner’s husband has paid the amount due to the complainant and, therefore, this petition is now filed seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 4. Having thus heard the petitioner’s counsel and taking note of the complaint allegations, in my view, as the complaint allegation, on the face of it, makes out a case against the petitioner prima facie, this court is, therefore, is not inclined to interfere under Section 482 of the Cr,P.C. If the petitioner’s husband had paid the entire amount of loan taken by the petitioner and if the petitioner issued the cheque under question and if she did not put her signature in the cheque, all these contentions can be urged by the petitioner before the trial court and, therefore, the following order is passed: The petition is rejected. Sd! JUDGE ckc/ -