JUDGMENT 1. In this petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner is seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against him in C.C. No.1593/2022 (Old C.C. No.1383/2020) on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N. I. Act") 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that petitioner borrowed loan in a total sum of Rs.24,20,060.00 from respondent-Credit Co-operative Society, by mortgaging immovable property and also five blank cheques were issued by way of security. Due to unavoidable circumstances he could not repay the loan. Petitioner has alleged that with ulterior motive respondent presented cheque bearing No.563825 dtd. 31/8/2020 for a sum of Rs.34,36,439.00. The same was returned with an endorsement "account closed". Petitioner has stated that the said account being "dormant account" was closed pending investigation in ACB case. It is the further case of petitioner that the cheques in question were not issued towards repayment of legally recovery of debt - but they were issued by way of security. 3. After the cheque in question was returned with the said endorsement, respondent issued legal notice and filed private complaint in PC No.425/2020. After taking cognizance it was registered in C.C. No.1384/2020. On 11/12/2020 petitioner appeared and secured bail. He filed application under Sec. 258 of Cr.P.C on 30/3/2021. However, it came to be rejected on 19/4/2021. 4. Against the said order petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.51/2021 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. However, the said petition is also dismissed on 22/2/2022. In the meanwhile, C.C.No.1384/2020 came to be transferred to the Court of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Dharwad and renumbered as C.C. NO.1593/2022. During the crossexamination of complainant, petitioner has taken a specific contention that the blank cheques were issued by way of security and not towards re-payment of any legally recoverable debt or liability. Being aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings, he has filed this petition. 5. During the course of arguments the learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that there is no prima-facie material to show that the petitioner has authorized the respondent to fill up blank cheques and present the same to the bank. Being aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings, he has filed this petition. 5. During the course of arguments the learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that there is no prima-facie material to show that the petitioner has authorized the respondent to fill up blank cheques and present the same to the bank. The trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the cheques in question were issued by way of security and not towards repayment of legally recoverable debt and therefore provisions of Sec. 138 of N. I. Act is not attracted. Instead of proceeding against the immovable property, with a malafide intention respondent has presented one of the cheque issued by way of security. The cheques issued by way of security cannot be presented unless the respondent is not left with any other mode of recovery of loan. Respondent has adopted illegal method to pressurize the petitioner and prays to allow the petition. 6. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed in Criminal Misc. No.27216/2010 dtd. 1/10/2012 by the Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Vijay Kumar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P and Others,Crl. Misc. Application No.27216/2010 dtd.1/10/2012. (Vijay Kumar's Case) 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent submitted that at the time of availing loan, in addition to mortgaging the immovable property, petitioner has issued five blank cheques authorizing the respondent to fill up the same and present in case of his failure to repay the loan amount which would be due including the interest and thereby rightly the trial Court has taken cognizance and proceeded in the matter and prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Heard the arguments and perused the records. 9. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner has borrowed a total sum of Rs.24,64,060.00 from respondent. He has mortgaged immovable property and also issued five blank cheques authorizing the respondent to present them in case there is any default committed by him. Of course option is available to the respondent to proceed against the immovable property. However, there is no agreement between the parties to the effect that the cheques are to be presented only after exhausting all other avenues available. Of course option is available to the respondent to proceed against the immovable property. However, there is no agreement between the parties to the effect that the cheques are to be presented only after exhausting all other avenues available. Therefore, the respondent has chosen the option which was available to it and presented one of the cheques for a sum of Rs.34,36,439.00 which amount was due as on 20/9/2020 which includes the interest accrued on the debt. 10. Of course it is not in dispute that the petitioner has committed default in repayment of loan. When the cheque, which was presented to the Bank returned dishonored on account of closure of the account, after issuing legal notice the respondent has filed the private complaint. 11. Having availed loan and issued five blank cheques authorizing the respondent to fill the same and present as and when required, it cannot be accepted that the cheques were not issued towards repayment of legally recovery of debt or liability. In fact as on the date the cheque was presented admittedly the petitioner was due to the respondent and therefore, the cheque is rightly considered as issued towards repayment of legal recovery of debt or liability. 12. In Vijay Kumar's case referred to supra, the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the cheque was issued by way of security and the same is not covered under Sec. 138 of the N. I. Act. However, in Sunil Todi and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, AIR 2022 SC 147 . (Sunil Todi's case), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely labeling a cheque as security would not obviate it's character as instrument designed to meet legally enforceable debt or liability, once agreement between the parties provided for which money is due and payable. Cheque furnished as security is covered under provisions of Sec. 138 of N. I. Act. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court petitioner cannot place reliance on Vijay Kumar's case referred to supra. 13. Cheque furnished as security is covered under provisions of Sec. 138 of N. I. Act. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court petitioner cannot place reliance on Vijay Kumar's case referred to supra. 13. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that blank cheque issued by petitioner is utilized to file complaint and as such the provision of Sec. 138 of N. I. Act is not attracted, is also not tenable, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1260/2022 (Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Pramod Kumar Tivari), wherein relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 . (Rangappa's Case), it is held that presumption under Sec. 139 of N. I. Act, is attracted even in case of blank cheques issued by the drawer unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. In view of these two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the blank cheques were issued by way of security and one of them is misused by the respondent. 14. Thus from the above decision I hold that no errors or illegality is committed by the trial Court in taking cognizance and proceeding with the matter calling for interference by this Court under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. In the result the petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed.