Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/982/2024 of SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR R Vs SRI MANJUNATH JEWELLARY WORKS on 3 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33212 CRL.RP No. 982 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.982 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR R., S/O. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT
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.982 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR R.,
S/O. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.4, GROUND FLOOR
11TH ‘A’ CROSS, PARSI LAYOUT
S.P.EXTENSION, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PANCHAM R.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI MANJUNATH JEWELLARY WORKS
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. HARISH S/O ESHWAR SHET
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NO.1, 2ND TEMPLE ROAD
15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DTD
29.04.2024, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.807/2022 AND THE JUDGEMENT DTD 13.06.2022,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
PASSED
BY
THE
COURT
OF
THE
XIII
ACMM
IN
CC.NO.29093/2015.
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. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. At the first instance, the accused took the defence that Cheque was stolen and by misusing the friendship, the complainant used the said Cheque and the same was stolen and made a false claim. With regard to this defence, in the reply notice as per Ex.P6, the same was taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph No.20 and in the cross-examination of D.W.1 also, he categorically admits that he has not given any complaint when he lost the Cheque. Other defence which was taken is that an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was paid to the account of the mother. But, complainant also produced Ex.P12. On perusal of Ex.P12 dated 14.11.2023, the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- has been credited to this account. But, in order
HC-KAR
to substantiate that accused only paid the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to the account of the complainant, not produced any document. Hence, not accepted the other defence of the accused. The accused also taken one more defence that signature in the Cheque not belongs to him. But, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, he categorically stated that accused himself signed the Cheque in his presence. Though accused took the contention that Cheque not belongs to him, but not sent the same to the Handwriting Expert.
3. Having considered these materials on record i.e., Exs.P1 to 13 and also the evidence of D.W.1, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused. The same is challenged in Criminal Appeal No.807/2022 and the First Appellate Court also in detail taken note of the grounds which have been urged in paragraph No.27 with regard to the suggestion made to P.W.1 and in paragraph Nos.28, 29, 30 and 31, re-appreciated the evidence and the defence which was taken by the accused before the First Appellate Court was not substantiated. Hence, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
HC-KAR
4. Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that even though Ex.P12 is produced before the Trial Court, the same is the account of mother of the complainant and there was credit to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- and the same was not taken note by both the Courts. But, the Trial Court in paragraph No.20 taken note of the same and in order to substantiate that accused himself made the payment of Rs.13,00,000/- to the account of the mother of the complainant, not substantiated any material by placing any documentary evidence and contra defence was taken at one breath giving the reply that Cheque was stolen, but not stated in the reply notice that the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was paid to the account of the mother and subsequently, afterthought the said defence was taken having perused the statement of the mother and to substantiate the same also, no material is placed before the Court. All these factors were taken note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. When such being the case and the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court not suffers from its legality and correctness, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise.
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36