Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/625/2026 of SUREKHA ENTERPRISES Vs MR. MOHAMMED AGA on 27 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010264122026 NC: 2026:KHC:38737 CRL.RP No. 625 of 2026 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.625 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SUREKHA ENTERPRISES NO.6, 2ND CROSS NEAR GOVT
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.625 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SUREKHA ENTERPRISES
NO.6, 2ND CROSS
NEAR GOVT SCHOOL
PUTTENAHALLI CIRCLE
J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE
BENGALURU - 560078
REP BY ITS PARTNER
MR. RAJASHEKAR REDDY
2.
MR. RAJASHEKAR REDDY
S/O B NAGESHWAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.23, 1ST FLOOR
7TH BLOCK, BDA LAYOUT
RAGHAVENAPALYA
BENGALURU – 560076
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. MOHAMMED AGA
S/O ALI AGA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A NO.11, 6TH CROSS
LAKSHMI ROAD
NEAR DIVA SHREE
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
SHANTHINAGARA
BENGALURU - 560027
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE – 560011
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED ON 27/02/2026
PASSED IN CRL. A.NO.25232/2025 BY THE HONBLE OF LXXII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
MAYOHALL UNIT (CCH-73) AND ETC.
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 revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.02.2025 passed in C.C.No.52030/2025 and also against the judgment dated 12.02.2026 passed in Crl.A.No.25232/2025.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
HC-KAR
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused No.2 approached the complainant for an amount of Rs.12 lakh and the complainant paid the same through bank on various dates. When complainant demanded the said amount, accused issued a Cheque for an amount of Rs.5,10,000/-. When the said Cheque was presented, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice and the same was served on him but not repaid the amount. Hence, filed the complaint, cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty.
4. On perusal of the records particularly, the order sheet of the Trial Court, it is clear that this petitioner appeared voluntarily before the Trial Court and settled the matter and memo of settlement is also filed. In view of the said memo of settlement, petitioner had issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.5 lakh and Rs.7 lakh admitting his liability for an amount of Rs.12 lakh. The order sheet to that effect discloses that it was reported settlement on
HC-KAR
06.02.2025 and not made any application before the Trial Court stating that his signature was taken fraudulently. Thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Court with a delay of 115 days. The Appellate Court considered the appeal and held that not led any evidence with regard to the delay of 115 days and also not given any explanation with regard to the delay of 4 months and the same is taken note of in paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Appellate Court. In paragraph 20, the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that on merits also, appellants herein have not shown any grounds in the appeal stating that the order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts, materials and evidence placed on record. On the other hand, the Trial Court with the consent of both the complainant and accused only has passed impugned order dated 06.02.2025 and the order is lawful and it is binding on the appellants herein and dismissed the appeal.
5. The records also discloses that the accused has voluntarily appeared and signed the settlement memo as
HC-KAR
well as he has tendered two cheques and those two cheques were dishonoured. The counsel for the petitioners submits that separate PCRs are also filed to the effect. When two cheques are given before the court admitting his liability, the contention of the counsel that, petitioner is liable only to the tune of Rs.5 lakh cannot be accepted. The other contention of the counsel for the petitioners that taken the signature on the two blank cheques and misused the same for Rs.12 lakh and said submission also cannot be accepted for the reason that the revision petitioner is not an illiterate person, he is an educated person. When he had issued two cheques in the month of February, 2025 in terms of the settlement, he has not taken any action till July 2025 for misusing of the same. Only in July, 2025 instead of approaching the very same Court with regard to any fraud in obtaining its signature, filed the appeal. The Appellate Court also taken note of the same and reasoned order has been passed with regard to the delay as well as on the merit. When such being the case, I do not find any grounds to entertain this revision petition since the revision petitioner admitted before the Trial Court
HC-KAR
towards his liability and issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.12 lakh and the same was not challenged immediately and only an after thought, the appeal was filed and the same was dismissed and as against the order, this revision petition is filed. Hence, there is no grounds to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed .
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SN