CRL.RP/1691/2024 of SMT NALINI CHANDRASHKEAR Vs SRI H P LOKESHA on 22 July 2026

JUDGEMENT

AND

ORDER

DTD

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

HC-KAR

03.10.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN CC.NO.4947/2017 AND TO ALLOW THIS PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused and the complainant are known to each other and the accused had approached the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly, the complainant made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and towards the discharge of loan amount, the accused had issued the subject matter of cheque. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, notice was issued and the same was

HC-KAR

served, but no reply was given. Hence, complaint was filed and the accused was secured before the Trial Court and she did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the complainant in order to substantiate his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. The accused examined herself as D.W.1, but not led any defence evidence.

4. The accused in her chief examination has deposed that the complainant is a real estate agent and she was intending to purchase a site through the complainant. In pursuance of which, the complainant had taken her signed cheque in order to enquire regarding the existence of her bank account. But there was no any sale agreement or sale deed and the very defence was not substantiated. The Trial Court taken note of the same in paragraph No.45. The defence taken by the accused in her chief examination and the defence taken during the cross-examination of P.W.1 are totally contrary to each other. The Trial Court taking note of the contra defence and the same is not substantiated, convicted and sentenced the accused.

HC-KAR

5. The Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court also urges the same ground that the cheque was collected by the complainant, since he was working as a real estate agent.

7. The Trial Court taken note of contra evidence of the accused. In one breath she says that in order to purchase the property, cheque was given and in another breath in the cross- examination she says that in order to enquire regarding the existence of the bank account of the accused, the cheque was given and the same is considered by the Trial Court in paragraph No.45 and reasons are assigned. When such defence was taken, the same was not substantiated by placing on record any cogent evidence and even no reply was given to the notice and only afterthought during the course of cross- examination such defence was taken. The accused except examining herself as D.W.1, not placed any record and there is no any preponderance of probabilities to doubt the case of the

HC-KAR

complainant. Under the circumstances, when the cheque was admitted, the question of interfering with the finding of the Trial Court does not arise.

8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39