Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1316/2023 of SRI. RAVIKUMAR Vs SRI. A V BALAKRISHNA on 27 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010521722023 NC: 2026:KHC:38626 CRL.RP No. 1316 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1316 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAVIKUMAR, S/O MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1316 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. RAVIKUMAR,
S/O MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
SULIKERE POST,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560060.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.M.IRISHAD AHAMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. A.V. BALAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.37/1, 1ST FLOOR,
2ND BLOCK, NETHAJI ROAD,
THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560028.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. MADHUSUDAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU
IN
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
C.C.NO.6861/2017 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 06.07.2023 PASSED BY THE LXVIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-69)
IN CRL.A.NO.335/2020 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF TRIAL COURT AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF
THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND TO PASS AN ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED HEREIN
OF THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM.
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. Perused the grounds which have been urged in the revision petitioner and heard the learned counsel for the respondent. In the previous occasion, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought time on the ground that he is not keeping well and today also again seeks time.
2. On perusal of the reasoning given by the Trial Court, particularly in paragraph Nos.27 and 28, the defence was taken by the accused that he had given blank signed cheques to the complainant as per his assurance at the time of borrowing loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him and though he has repaid the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to him and the
HC-KAR
complainant was agreed to receive the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within three months and though he has not issued the cheuqes in question towards the discharge of amount of Rs.7,25,000/-, but the two old blank cheques issued by him as security have been misused by the complainant by filling the date and amount on the cheques and filed the false case against him. The said defence remained as defence only and nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination. The evidence which was led before the Court by examining D.W.1 and D.W.2, not substantiated the same and no satisfactory reasons are given and there is no any rebuttal evidence. The accused has not denied the disputed cheques in question as well as the signature. The contention that blank signed cheques were taken was not proved by leading any probable evidence. When such being case, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and the reasoning given by the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.27 and 28 is very clear and the same is appreciated by the Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of both the Courts and the same not suffers
HC-KAR
from its legality and correctness and hence, the same is not warranted to admit the revision petition.
3. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24