Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1109/2026 of SRI.R.K.SURENDRA BABU Vs SMT GIRIJA on 17 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010466572026 NC: 2026:KHC:36729 CRL.RP No. 1109 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1109 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R.K.SURENDRA BABU, S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1109 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. R.K.SURENDRA BABU,
S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH CHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
NO.36, SURI’S GORUND FLOOR,
5TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS,
TYAGARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU-28.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. GIRIJA,
W/O LATE H.L.BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
NO.938, 29TH MAIN,
2ND BLOCK, JNANABHARATHI,
NAGADEVANAHALLI, KENGERI,
BENGALURU-56.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 03.01.2023 IN CC NO.2988/2020 ON THE
FILE OF THE IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, ACMM COURT, BENGALURU CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR
THE OFFENCES U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND CONFIRMATION OF
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THE ORDER BY THE HONBLE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-62), DATED 22.05.2026
IN CRL.A NO.120/2023 AND ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF THE CHARGES AS PRAYED
FOR.
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. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court while invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that, she had taken the house property on mortgage from the accused and had paid a lump sum amount of Rs.22,00,000/- as mortgage amount. The complainant vacated the said building and the accused returned a part amount paid by the complainant and further took time to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,10,000/- and thereby the accused agreed to pay the said amount and issued the cheque dated
HC-KAR
10.12.2019 for an amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. As per the instructions of the accused, when the cheque was presented, the same was dishonored with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, the complainant got issued the demand notice calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. Notice was served to the accused and the accused has issued an untenable reply dated 23.03.2020. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint and cognizance was taken and the accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claimed the trial. Hence, the complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. P.W.1 also got examined the power of attorney holder as P.W.2 and got marked the document Ex.P.7. The statement of the accused was recorded. Except cross-examination of P.W.1, not led any defence evidence.
3. The Trial Court in paragraph No.12 taken note of the defence of the accused that he had paid the entire mortgage amount to the complainant and towards the
HC-KAR
security of the mortgage amount, the cheque was issued. He also claims that the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- towards maintenance charge, painting and repair charges. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited and even not produced the mortgage document with regard to the claim made by the accused. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the case of the complainant is not rebutted. The issuance of cheque is admitted and signature is admitted and the very contention that the cheque was issued towards the security is not established and hence, convicted and sentenced the accused.
4. The Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence, taken note of the defence and in paragraph No.20 comes to the conclusion that there is no dispute that the complainant was a lessee/mortagee in respect of the property belonging to the accused. There is no dispute that the complainant had paid Rs.22,00,000/- to the accused and the accused was
HC-KAR
due to the complainant in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The same is evident from the reply notice given as per Ex.P.6. According to the accused, he has repaid the entire amount. For having repaid the entire amount, no document is placed on record and subject matter of issuance of cheque was not disputed. Though made the counter claim from the complainant, the same is also not established and the same is taken note of by the Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.21 and 22 and confirmed the order of the Trial Court.
5. The main contention of the revision petitioner before this Court is that inspite of entire mortgage amount of Rs.22,00,000/- was paid, the cheque was not returned and the same was given only for security and the same was misused. In order to prove the misusing of the said cheque is concerned, nothing is elicited. The accused even not entered into the witness box and substantiated the same. Except giving reply, no other material is available before the Court. For misuse of the cheque also, no
HC-KAR
complaint was given and even mortgage deed also not produced before the Court. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. When both the Courts have applied their mind and considered the material on record and when the order also not suffers for its legality and correctness, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the petition.
6. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21