CRL.RP/635/2026 of SRI N MOHAN KUMAR Vs SRI GANGIREDDY VIJAYKUMAR REDDY on 3 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that he was in search of a building to run a P.G. Centre in BTM Layout, Bengaluru and came in contact with accused through their common friend and accused arranged the premises which belongs to his mother at Someshwara Colony, BTM Layout, Bengaluru. As per rental agreement, the complainant has to give the security deposit of Rs.17,00,000/- and monthly rent of Rs.2,15,000/- and rental agreement was executed on 03.06.2020. The complainant had paid monthly rents regularly upto March 2020 and since the business was down during Covid-19 pandemic, therefore, he informed the

HC-KAR

accused and his brother Mr.N.Chandrashekar that he is going to vacate the premises and requested them to settle their security deposit of Rs.17,00,000/- after deducting any dues. The accused and his brother N. Chandrashekar vehemently denied to return the security deposit to the complainant. Therefore, complainant approached the Mico Layout Police Station and when the Police called accused and his brother, the accused alone came to the police station and signed a settlement agreement on the back page of original rent agreement and finalized the amount for a sum of Rs.8,25,000/-. The accused agreed to repay Rs.8,25,000/- and issued three Cheques, two Cheques in favour of complainant i.e., for Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,25,000/- and the accused issued another Cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of G. Kalavathi, who is none other than mother of complainant. The Cheque issued in favour of mother of the complainant was encashed. But, Cheques issued in favour of the complainant were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Hence, notice was issued and the same returned un-served. Therefore, complaint was filed and the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

HC-KAR

3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P7. P.W.1 was cross- examined. The accused did not lead any evidence and was subjected to 313 statement and in 313 statement, it was total denial.

4. The Trial Court having considered material on record, both oral and documentary evidence, particularly in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 discussed the same in detail. In paragraph No.16, the Trial Court discussed cross-examination of P.W.1 and when suggestion was made to P.W.1 regarding three Cheques given towards security, the same was categorically denied. So also in paragraph No.19, the Trial Court taken note of admission and accused himself got examined Ex.D1 and except this document, no other material before the Court. No doubt, P.W.1 stated that these Cheques were issued before the Police Station, it is brought to notice of this Court that in the complaint itself it is stated that when they did not repay the advance amount, Cheques are issued and suggestion was made that Cheques are collected by force and the same was denied. But, the accused did not enter into the

HC-KAR

witness box and these Cheques are taken by force. When such being the case, when there was rental agreement as per Ex.D1 and advance amount was paid to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and the same was not returned, the matter had reached to the Police Station, complaint was given, thereafter Cheques were issued in the Police Station. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note of said fact into consideration and in paragraph Nos.19 and 20, the Trial Court discussed the same and First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of the material on record, taken note that Cheques which were issued towards liability i.e., towards refund of advance amount. When such being the case, the very contention of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court that Cheques were issued on behalf of their brother and the contention that those Cheques were issued towards liability of the brother cannot be accepted and the Cheques were given by the revision petitioner.

5. The fact that rental agreement was also entered into between the complainant and accused and towards liability, Cheques were issued is not in dispute. Considering the material on record, I do not find any ground to come to an

HC-KAR

other conclusion that the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness and the material available before the Court is clear that Cheques are issued for the liability towards refund of the advance amount which was received. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48