- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23299 CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 176 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI D P PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA, RESIDENT OF NO.71, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 085 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI NAVEEN PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O SRI PRAKASH, RESIDENT OF NO.3181, VISHVESHWARAIAH CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT, 4TH PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURESHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2021 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.194/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY SET Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23299 CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022 ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2020 PASSED IN C.C.NO.4453/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XXIV ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.194/2021 by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 01.02.2020 passed in C.C.No.4453/2019- by the XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (SCCH-26), Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act for brevity) has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23299 CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022 3. The case of the respondent –complainant before the trial Court was that complainant’s father and the petitioner –accused were neighbours. The petitioner – accused has borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the complainant as hand loan during the first week of May- 2016 for development of his office. The complainant has approached for repayment of hand loan. At that time, the petitioner –accused has issued a post dated cheque bearing No.827478 dated 08.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(rupees Ten Lakhs only) drawn in the Corporation Bank, M.G.Road branch, Bengaluru. The complainant presented the said cheque and it came to be dishonoured for a reason “funds insufficient” on 09.05.2019. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 26.06.2019 calling upon the petitioner –accused to make payment of cheque amount within a period of 15 days. The said notice has been served on the petitioner – accused. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner – accused has not paid the cheque amount. Therefore, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23299 CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022 respondent –complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner –complainant for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 4. The complainant has been examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P6. The statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At this stage, the petitioner –accused and respondent –complainant have filed joint memo and prayed to pass the judgment on the basis of terms and conditions enumerated in the joint memo. Considering the same, the trial Court has passed the judgment convicting the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,10,000/- (rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand only) in three installment as stated in the joint memo and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months. The said judgment of conviction has been challenged before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.194/2021. The said appeal came to be dismissed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23299 CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022 on merits affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner –accused would contend that the petitioner under impression that the matter is settled for Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) affixed his signature on the joint memo and later came to know that they agreed to pay amount of Rs.5,10,000/-(rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand only). 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there were discussions and after that, the joint memo has been prepared and filed. On going through averments of the joint memo, both parties affixed their signature and the petitioner –accused has agreed to pay amount of Rs.5,10,000/-(rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand only) in three installments and based on that the judgment has been passed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23299 CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022 7. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused impugned judgments and trial Court records. 8. The petitioner –accused and respondent – complainant during pendency of the Criminal Case have entered into settlement and the petitioner –accused has agreed to pay amount of Rs.5,10,000/-(rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand only) in installments. The said joint memo has been signed by the petitioner and respondent and filed before the trial Court. Based on the terms and conditions enumerated in the said joint memo, the trial Court has convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,10,000/-(rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand only) in three installments. The very said filing of the joint memo indicate that the petitioner –accused has admitted issuance of cheque. As issuance of cheque is admitted, the presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the N.I Act that the cheque is issued for discharge of debt. The said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23299 CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022 –accused has not rebutted the said presumption. Considering the said aspect and terms and conditions of joint memo, the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 9. The joint memo has been filed on 31.01.2020 before the trial Court. On that day the petitioner –accused was represented by his counsel. The petitioner and his counsel both affixed their signature on the joint memo and also on the order sheet. On the said date the petitioner – accused has made payment of Rs.10,000/- and same has been received by the respondent –complainant and also made endorsement to that effect in the order sheet of the trial Court. When the petitioner –accused is represented by his counsel, now he cannot say that he under misconception has affixed his signature on the joint memo. Even the Appellate Court considering the contention raised by the petitioner –accused has dismissed the appeal. There are no grounds made out to allow this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23299 CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022 Criminal Revision Petition and acquit the petitioner – accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33