CRL.RP/591/2024 of SRINIVASA SHETTY Vs MANJULA V on 8 July 2026

JUDGMENT

DATED 25.09.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.53/2023 IT IS PASSED BY THE LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.

IN CRL.RP NO.591/2024:

BETWEEN:

1. SRINIVASA SHETTY S/O. LATE K. RAMAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADAVI SRINIVAS SHETTY NILAYA, 2ND MAIN, GANDHINAGARA, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYASIMHA K.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MANJULA V W/O. NAGENDRA, AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.17, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, KASHI NAGAR MAIN ROAD, AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RADHIKA K., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.PC. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT

DATED 13.12.2022 IN C.C.NO.4007/2020 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, IT IS PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND

HC-KAR

ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY (SCCH-2) AND JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.54/2023, IT IS PASSED BY THE LV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The accused is one and the same in both the cases, hence the matters are taken up together for common disposal.

2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant in Crl.R.P.No.594/2024 while invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act is that accused is known to the complainant through her father since several years and accused is running oil business in the name and style of S.K. Enterprises. By taking advantage of their acquaintance and close relationship, accused has requested the complainant for advancement of loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of expansion of the business and also to solve the domestic problems. The accused is Director of Akshaya Credit Souhardha Sahakari Bank Ltd. and his children

HC-KAR

are well settled in Germany. The complainant has arranged an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and paid the accused a hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.03.2020 and the accused acknowledged the same. The complainant is a Doctor by profession and she had sufficient salary and income to lend money to the accused. The accused had promised to repay that amount and finally, when he did not repay the amount, he issued the subject matter of Cheque dated 26.05.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,17,900/- and when the Cheque was presented, an endorsement was issued as ‘exceeds arrangement’. The legal notice was issued and the same was served. But, accused did not comply with the demand and no reply was given. Hence, private complaint was filed and cognizance was taken.

3. In Crl.R.P.No.591/2024, while filing the complaint and invoking Section 138 of N.I. Act, a similar set of facts was stated stating that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the accused as hand loan on 10.01.2020 and he acknowledged the same and agreed to repay the same, but ultimately he had issued a Cheque dated 21.03.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,17,900/-. In the said case also, when the Cheque was presented, an

HC-KAR

endorsement was issued by the bank as ‘exceeds arrangement’ and no reply was given to the legal notice. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. In both the cases, the accused is one and the same and complainants are different and documents are marked on their behalf in both the cases.

4. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D3 and contention was taken that complainants are strangers and no such transaction. The accused also produced the document of Ex.D2- acknowledgement for having lodged the complaint with Yelahanka Police and subject matter of Cheques pertains to earlier dates and when notice was served, no reply was given. If complaint is lodged before the police prior to issuance of notice, the same would have been stated in the reply given and in the said notice, no reply is given. Even in the cross- examination, it is categorically admitted that complaint Ex.D2 was given after issuance of notice and notice was served on the accused. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court considering the case of complainant and also the defence and even considered the admitted facts which were listed out by the

HC-KAR

Trial Court while considering the case in paragraph No.14 and the defence was also taken note of and reasons are also assigned. Though defence was taken that account was not active, but Ex.D1 reveals that his account was active since 2016 to 2021 and he has withdrawn the cash from the bank account on various dates and vice versa, the cash has been deposited to his account and account was also prevailing as on the date of issuance of the Cheque. The admission was also taken note in paragraph Nos.21, 22 and 23 with regard to the statutory notice and also in paragraph No.24 discussed with regard to Ex.D2 as well as Ex.P4 acknowledgment for having served notice. Though, the accused contend that notice was not served, but the same was served and acknowledgment is also available on record.

5. Having considered all these material, the Trial Court convicted the accused and also in the respective appeal, the First Appellate Court reassessed both oral and documentary evidence and particularly, taken note of documents Exs.D1 to D4 which were produced by the accused in the defence in paragraph No.20 and also taken note of Ex.D3-account

HC-KAR

statement and the admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross- examination and confirmed the order of the Trial Court.

6. Having taken note of the grounds which have been urged in the revision petitions as well as the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court considered the material, particularly the documents and also the evidence and admission on the part of D.W.1 during his cross-examination with regard to service of notice as well as the fact that account was active as on the date of issuance of Cheque, though defence was taken that the account was not active as on the date of transaction. All these aspects have been taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition and the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29