Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/1113/2026 of SYED MOHIUDDIN BOKHARI Vs M/S SUKH SHANTHI INVESTMENTS on 17 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010472002026 NC: 2026:KHC:36730 CRL.RP No. 1113 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.1113 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SYED MOHIUDDIN BOKHARI, S/O SYED SALAHUDDIN
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.1113 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SYED MOHIUDDIN BOKHARI,
S/O SYED SALAHUDDIN BOKHARI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.451, B.M.STREET,
DAIRA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-562160.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANJANEYA A.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M/S. SUKH SHANTHI INVESTMENTS,
NO.22, 1ST FLOOR, BAZAAR STREET,
NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU-560047,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/SPA
SRI. OM PRAKASH,
S/O BHAWARLAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
MANAGER OF M/S. SUKH SHANTHI INVESTMENTS.
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO
CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 09.06.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.25122/2025 PASSED
BY THE HONBLE LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE,
MAYHALL
UNIT,
BENGALURU
CITY
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
(CCH-75), BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND IN CONSEQUENCES
THEREOF SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED
IN CC.NO.52426/2022 DATED 25.02.2025 DISPOSED ON THE
FILE OF XXXIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL
UNIT,
BENGALURU
BY
DISMISSING
THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
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
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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 is that the complainant is the proprietorship concern and the accused being one of the customers of the complainant, approached the complainant for hire purchase of vehicle bearing No.KA-51-AA-7764 Etios car and entered into a hire purchase agreement on 08.07.2019 for Rs.3,50,000/- by way of bank transfer. The accused had requested to pay the said amount to the seller by name SLV Cars. The accused had to clear the said loan on monthly equated installments, but failed to pay the monthly installments as agreed. Hence, the accused had issued a cheque dated
HC-KAR
28.12.2021 for Rs.5,35,200/- for return of the amount. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to pay the amount. Inspite of service of notice, the accused neither replied to the said legal notice nor made the payment. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The accused was secured before the Trial Court and he engaged the counsel. The complainant in order to substantiate his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8.
3. The Trial Court taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SRI RANGAPPA v. SRI MOHAN reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 with regard to the notice and no reply and also the presumption and the said presumption was not rebutted. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has stated that he has cleared the entire loan. But nothing is placed on record to establish the said fact and he has not led any defence evidence and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.12 and 13. When there is no any cross-examination and no rebuttal
HC-KAR
evidence, the question of considering this revision petition does not arise and there is no any error on the part of the Trial Court invoking the presumption when there was no any rebuttal evidence and hence, I do not find any ground to admit the petition.
4. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22