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. 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 as evidenced under Ex.P-20, as such also, the debt is not barred by time. He further submitted that since there is an acknowledgment of debt, the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, as such, it is only in the trial, the trial Court can adjudicate the same. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot exercise its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’). 8. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot exercise its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’). 8. A perusal of the complaint would go to show that in the very complaint itself, the complainant has stated that the alleged loan transaction which were said to be on four different dates commencing on 30.11.2007 with alleged loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the 1st respondent and ended with a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- said to have been given to respondent No.2 on 1.4.2008, as such, the latest date of loan was 1.4.2008. The complainant in his complaint itself has admitted that since at the time of availing the loan, the accused had issued him the blank cheques, after duly notifying them that he had filled the contents by putting the date, month and year as 12.8.2013, he had presented those cheques. Thus, admittedly the complainant has filled those cheques five years thereafter i.e., on 12.8.2013 and presented them for realisation. It is thereafter the said cheques were said to have been returned with banker’s shara as ‘Account closed by the drawers’. 9. Taking recourse to the said aspect that the complainant had filled the cheques in the year 2013, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon an unreported judgment in Sasseriyil Joseph vs. Devassia, reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 24, wherein at Paragraph-7, the Kerala High Court was pleased to hold that, in the case before it, admittedly the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a time barred debt and opined that it cannot be said that the time barred debt is a legally enforceable debt. The said order was assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court as evidenced in a photocopy of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10.9.2001, passed in S.L.P. (Crl) No.1785/2001 and the said SLP came to be dismissed. 10. The point of difference that can be noticed from the case of Sasseriyil Joseph (supra) to the case on hand is the alleged letter of acknowledgment of a debt said to have been executed by the accused admitting their debt and requesting the complainant not to present the cheques issued to the complainant at the time of availing the loan. The said letter along with postal envelop appears to have been marked by the complainant in the trial Court as per Exs.P-19 and P-20 respectively. The said letter along with postal envelop appears to have been marked by the complainant in the trial Court as per Exs.P-19 and P-20 respectively. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Exs.P-19 and P-20 are fabricated and created documents, as such, the same cannot be accepted, but the genuinity, authenticity and correctness of the said documents has to be ascertained by the trial Court which is seized with the matter and this Court at this stage, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot appreciate the evidentiary value of a document which is the subject matter of a trial in a criminal case. As such, unless Exs.P-19 and P-20 are held to be not authenticated and that they are fabricated or created documents, it cannot be concluded at this stage that the alleged debt was time barred and there was no acknowledgement of debt by the accused/debtors in the matter. Secondly, according to the complainant, admittedly the cheques issued were blank cheques and they were filled by the complainant as contended by him in his very complaint itself. In that regard, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Bir Singh’s case (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. 11. As such, it is pre-mature even to say that the alleged cheques which are said to have been dishonoured were not issued by the accused towards the discharge of the alleged debt of the year 2007-2008. Since the points contended before this Court by the petitioners can only be looked into and answered by the trial Court after holding a detailed trial, it cannot be held that there is any abuse of process of law in continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioners in the trial Court. As such, I do not find any merit to allow these petitions. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Criminal Petitions are dismissed as devoid of merit. Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the trial Court along with trial Court records without delay.