Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/713/2026 of SRI K C GOKULA Vs MR ACHAYYA SHANMUGA SUNDARAM KALERA on 2 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33367 CRL.RP No. 713 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 713 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI K C GOKULA S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT KOPATTI
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 713 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI K C GOKULA
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT KOPATTI VILLAGE,
CHETTIMANI POST,
MADIKERE TALUK,
KODAGU- 571 201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAVANYA S,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
MR ACHAYYA SHANMUGA SUNDARAM
KALERA,S/O SRI. KADLERA A
SHANMURGA SUNDARAM,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT T-3, ALCONS RUBY
K. VEERANNA LAYOUT,
NEAR RAJESHWARI SCHOOL,
THINDLU BENGALURU -560 097.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K R PARASHURAM,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438
R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
TOa) SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENTS AND ORDERS OF
CONVICTION DTD 09.03.2026 PASSED BY THE LXVII ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-68) BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.99/2024 AND AS WELL AS THE JUDGEMENT AND
ORDER DTD 28.12.2021 PASSED BY THE XVIII ACMM, BENGALURU IN CC.NO.23508/2021 WHICH ARE PRODUCED
HEREIN.
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
Heard the revision petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This matter is listed for admission.
3. There is no dispute that both of them entered into an agreement on 11.09.2020 and also having perused the agreement of sale, it is very clear that documents of the said properties are yet to be cleared before the revenue authorities. The vendor i.e., revision petitioner herein being the owner of the said properties offered to give his duly signed cheque bearing number 964593 for an amount of Rs.5,15,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs fifteen thousand only) as security to the sale consideration paid
HC-KAR
by the purchasers and the said purchasers are at liberty to present the said cheque equally like to the value already paid by them and if the said cheque is not honored on presentation, then the purchasers are at liberty to take legal action against the vendor i.e., revision petitioner herein.
4. Having considered this recital in agreement, it is very clear that the revision petitioner is only having the possession of the property and not having the title and also to that effect there is a recital in the agreement. When the sale did not comes through in terms of condition No.5 of the agreement, the respondent/complainant has presented the cheque. When the same was bounced, the proceedings was initiated against the accused. No doubt, in the cross examination of PW1., it is admitted that the said cheque was given as security and considering the recital of Ex.P5., it is seen that the said cheque was given as security for the amount what the revision petitioner has received and also the recitals is very clear
HC-KAR
that, if the records are not cleared, then the cheque can be presented and the same can be enforced. When such being the case, the very contention that the respondent did not come forward to obtain the sale deed, cannot be accepted.
5. The factual aspect of the case is that when the revision petitioner has received the amount and also issued the cheque, the same is also subject to the clearance of the records and now the counsel cannot contend that the revision petitioner was not able to pay the amount. The very issuance of cheque is for the security as well as in consideration of the amount what the revision petitioner has received. However, these factors were taken note of by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.
6. Under the circumstances, when there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of cheque and signature and also the agreement between the parties, so
HC-KAR
also not in dispute that the revision petitioner has received the amount and also issued the cheque towards the liability, the question of entertaining this revision petition does not arise and hence, I do not find any ground to admit this revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62