Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/679/2024 of SILICON TECHNOLOGIES Vs M PUTTAPPA on 22 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010277492024 NC: 2026:KHC:37826 CRL.RP No. 679 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 679 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SILICON TECHNOLOGIES REPRESENTED BY ITS
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 679 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1.
SILICON TECHNOLOGIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
D V ABHINANDAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O D N VENKATARAMAYA
R/A T NO 716,OPP SHAKTHI
GANESHA TEMPLE,1ST B MAIN
7TH BLOCK,BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
GIRINAGAR,BENGALURU 560 085.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M PUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE MAHIMANNA
R/AT NO 20,RAMASANDRA VILLAGE
SULIKERE POST,KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH-560 060.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY K P,ADVOCATE)
CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.04.2024 PASSED IN
CRL.A.NO.1106/2023 BY THE LEARNED LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 14.07.2023 PASSED BY THE XXXVI
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.18/2021 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND TO ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER.
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 called twice i.e. in the early morning and also in the afternoon. But there is no representation by the revision petitioner. The matter was also referred to the mediation and the report was received that ‘not settled’. Moreover, this matter is not yet admitted and counsel for the revision petitioner is also not pursuing the matter.
2. Having perused the material also, the revision petitioner even though led evidence by examining himself as D.W.1, the defence was taken that complaint was filed through one Mr. Balraj and no financial capacity and the
HC-KAR
same is not substantiated. The trial Court and the appellate Court taken note of the material on record and no documents are produced except the oral evidence of the revision petitioner and the same is discussed in detail in paragraph Nos.20, 21, 22 and 23, the trial court considered the material and the appellate Court also re- appreciated the same and in view of non pursuing the matter by revision petitioner, the revision petition is dismissed.
3. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application if any, stands dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29