Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/788/2026 of SMT. M. B. HASSANBI @ HASEENABI Vs SRI. N. BHASHASAB on 29 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010337232026 NC: 2026:KHC:39455 CRL.RP No. 788 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.788 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. M.B.HASSANBI @ HASEENABI D/O BUDENSAB GOVT.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.788 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. M.B.HASSANBI @ HASEENABI
D/O BUDENSAB
GOVT. TEACHER
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O D.NO.1966/24, VIDYA NILAYA
3RD MAIN, 7TH CROSS
NEAR BSC COLLEGE
S.S.BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE-577 002.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. N. BHASHASAB
S/O NABISAB
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
OCC: RETIRED RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
R/O D.NO.503/1, 1ST MAIN
5TH CROSS, K.B.BADAVANE,
DAVANAGERE.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE, IN
CRL.A.NO.51/2025 DATED 04.04.2005 CONSEQUENTLY SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., AT DAVANAGERE, IN C.C. NO. 3735/2023 DATED
01.02.2025.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that both the complainant and accused are known to each other and accused is the sister of complainant's wife. The accused approached the complainant for financial help for purchase of site and also to meet her urgent family needs. For which the complainant advanced the amount of Rs.5,50,000 on 02.03.2020 and though agreed to repay the same within three months, but did not repay the amount and on insistence, issued the subject matter of Cheques on
HC-KAR
04.04.2021 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and also for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, in all, for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- and when the Cheques were presented, the same were returned with an endorsement ‘account closed’. Notice was issued and the same returned with shara ‘borrower refused to receive the notice’. Inspite of demand, the accused did not comply with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed, cognizance was taken, accused was secured and he claims trial.
3. Hence, complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10, including the Cheque, legal notice, postal receipt and courier receipt and accused did not enter into witness box to lead any evidence and not produced any document. The Trial Court taking note of the Cheques and both the Cheques were bounced and no rebuttal evidence, comes to the conclusion that presumption is not rebutted. Hence, convicted and sentenced the accused.
4. The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of evidence, in paragraph No.45 comes to the conclusion that even though defence was taken that no opportunity was given, particularly in proceedings of summary nature, it is the
HC-KAR
bounden duty of the accused to remain present before the Court, especially when she has executed bail bonds undertaking to appear on all hearing dates and even after engaging new counsel also, accused did not file any application to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. Ultimately, proceeded with the matter on merits. Hence, the First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that no ground is made out and confirmed the order of the Trial Court.
5. Now, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would contend that even though there is no defence evidence, ought to have proved the case of complainant and the same is not proved and the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that with regard to transaction is concerned, Cheques were given i.e., Exs.P1 and P2 and the same are marked and nothing is placed on record to dispute the same and there is no rebuttal evidence on the part of the revision petitioner and neither cross-examined the witness nor led any defence evidence and only contention before the First Appellate Court is that no opportunity was given and the same cannot be accepted. When the judgment of Trial Court and the First
HC-KAR
Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42