Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/217/2026 of SRI ANNANAGOUDA R H Vs SRI ARAVINDMURTHY, on 10 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:35125 CRL.RP No. 217 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.217 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI ANNANAGOUDA R.H., S/O. LATE RUDRAGOUDA H. AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.217 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI ANNANAGOUDA R.H.,
S/O. LATE RUDRAGOUDA H.
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SANGAPUR,
KARADIGUDDA POST,
MANVI TALUK,
RAICHUR DISTRICT-584123,
RAJARAJESHWARI NILAYA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. HARINATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI ARAVINDMURTHY,
S/O. JAYANNA B.R.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.34, EWS, 2ND FLOOR,
28TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
J.P. NAGAR, MYSURU.
…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 SET ASIDE
THE ORDERS OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, MYSORE, IN CRL.A NO.164/2025 DATED 21.11.2025
AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NANJANGUD IN C.C.NO.5125/2022
DATED 25.03.2025 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
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 Trial Court having considered the factual aspects of the case, convicted the accused to pay an amount of Rs.5,65,000/-. The Trial Court also taken note of no defence evidence and discussed in paragraph Nos.26 and 27. The Trial Court also discussed the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in detail and the accused has not rebutted the evidence of the complainant and invoked the presumption and presumption is also not rebutted and hence, convicted and sentenced the accused.
3. The same was challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court re-assessed the evidence available on record, particularly in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 and observed that except the suggestions in the cross-
HC-KAR
examination of P.W.1, nothing is elicited. During the cross- examination of P.W.1, the defence counsel suggested that the amounts were transferred to the account of the accused from the account of one Gajendra and Yuvaraj and the complainant specifically contended that when the accused approached him seeking financial assistance, he had paid the money by getting the money from his relatives and in order to prove the said fact, the complainant also produced the statement of accounts as Ex.P.7. The amounts were transferred to the account of the accused from the accounts of one Gajendra and Yuvaraj, is also not in dispute. The defence was also taken note of and the same is considered by the Appellate Court. When both the Courts have taken note of the defence of the accused and considered the material on record, I do not find any grounds to entertain the revision petition and the scope of revision is very limited. Only in circumstances of the judgment suffers from its legality and correctness and if it leads to miscarriage of justice in non-
HC-KAR
consideration of material, then only the Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31