Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/681/2024 of MR RAJESH B Vs MRS SANDHYALATHA D SHETTY on 3 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33192 CRL.RP No. 681 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 681 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. RAJESH B AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O GANGADHARA,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 681 OF 2024
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MR. RAJESH B
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O GANGADHARA,
R/AT NADIGUTHU, KODICHAL 4TH B CROSS,
ASHOKNAGARA POST,
MANGALURU-575006.
…PETITIONER
(BY MS. SONALI C., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MRS. SANDHYALATHA D SHETTY
S/O DEEPAK SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT A S COMPOUND,
ALAKE, KULASHEKAR POST,
BIKARNAKATTE,
MANGALURU-575008.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HEGDE LAXMI NARAYAN NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.42/2021 DATED 29.02.2024 AND
ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 11.02.2021 IN
C.C.NO.945/2018 DATED 11.02.2021 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.
- V COURT, MANGALURU AND MAY PLEASED TO DIRECT THE
ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER.
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.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. On perusal of the defence before the trial Court, it is observed that in one breath, he says that he has not availed the money from the complainant, however, during the course of cross-examination of PW1, suggestion was made that he has availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- and that the same was returned and the agreement which came into effect with regard to the said transaction was also handed over to him.
4. Further, when he was examined as DW1, he admitted that the complainant had been known to him since for the last 7 to 8 years and got her acquaintance at the Teacher's Cooperative Society where he goes for
HC-KAR
pigmy collections. But the only defence of the accused is that he had borrowed Rs.50,000/- and not Rs.2,00,000/-. But in order to substantiate the defence, he has not adduced any supportive evidence except examining himself as DW1 and got marked document Exs.D1 and D2.
5. Although the petitioner claims that there was an agreement for having returned the money, a copy of the agreement was not placed before the Court. All these materials were taken note of by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
When such being the case, a contradictory defence was taken in one breath stating that no such transaction and no such cheque was given. But he has not explained how the cheque was gone to the hands of complainant. Again second contradictory counter defence was taken claiming that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- not Rs.2,00,000/- and which he has repaid and in order to show that he has repaid the amount nothing is placed on the record. When such being
HC-KAR
the case, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition and revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33