- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22777 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1134 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. DEEPA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT No.303, 9TH CROSS LAKSMIUPRA, K G NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 019. PH.No.9739518553. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. BRINDA KALIDINDI, ADVOCATE – ABSENT) AND: SMT. ANITHA W/O RAM MURTHY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING 288, 7TH CROSS VASANTHAMMA BULIDING SRIKRISHNADEVARAYA ROAD LASKHMIPURAM BENGALURU – 560 019. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI AJAY R, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE TWO IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS VIZ., CRL. APPEAL No.1084/2021 DATED 01.07.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH- 66) AT BENGALURU AND C.C.No.961/2019 DATED 23.10.2019 Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22777 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024 ON THE FILE OF XVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND REMAND BACK THE MATTER TO THE LOWER COURT AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO LEAD HER DEFENCE EVIDENCE AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 01.07.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.1084/2021 by the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the conviction of the petitioner dated 23.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.961/2019 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act” for brevity) has been confirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. 3. The respondent –complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22777 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024 under Court was that the petitioner –accused has availed hand loan for Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) during April 2017 and promised to repay the same within 06 months. The petitioner –accused in order repay the same has issued two cheques one for Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees Five Lakhs only) bearing No.870871 and another cheque bearing No.894999 for a sum Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees Ten Lakhs only). The respondent –complainant has presented said cheques for encashment and they are dishonoured with endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer” dated 09.05.2018. The respondent got issued legal notice dated 07.06.2018 to the accused and same has been served on the accused on 08.06.2018. The accused neither replied to the legal notice nor paid cheques amount. Therefore, the respondent –complainant has initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act in two cases. Out of those two cases this case pertains to cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees Five Lakhs only). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22777 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024 4. The complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P6. The petitioner –accused took several adjournments for cross examination. On 19.10.2019, a joint memo has been filed and it has been signed by the petitioner –accused, respondent –complainant and their respective counsels. Under said joint memo, the petitioner –accused has agreed for settlement of the matter and making payment of Rs.3,75,000/-(rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) within 06 months i.e., before April -2020. 5. Based on the said joint memo, the trial Court has passed the judgment convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,75,000/- and said amount of fine has to be paid as compensation to the respondent – complainant and it is to be paid before April -2020. The petitioner –accused instead of paying the said amount has challenged the said judgment in appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after hearing parties - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22777 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024 has passed the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal on merits. 6. In the appeal the petitioner has contended that the said settlement by way joint memo is made by coercion and prayed for remand of the matter. While considering the said aspect, the Appellate Court has given finding as under “17. On perusal of the records and the joint memo filed by both the complainant and accused and the order sheet it is noticed that there is no coercion and undue influence as alleged by the appellant as the appellant / accused having voluntarily agreed, have filed the joint memo before the trial court as the case was posted for cross examination of PW1. The trial court while taking the joint memo on record as clearly mentioned that the terms and conditions enumerated in the joint memo are read over and explained to the complainant and accused in the open court to them and both the parties agreed and accepted the same. As per the settlement both the parties are amicably settled the matter for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- in full and final within six months i.e., before April 2020. The accused and accused counsel, the complainant and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22777 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024 complainant's counsel present and they have endorsed the signature on the order sheet and so also on the joint memo filed before the trial court. The accused having voluntarily agreed to pay the amount to the complainant by filing the joint memo and agreed for the installments. Now the accused cannot plead that he has executed the joint memo in undue influence and coercion. The amount due under cheque is Rs.5,00,000/- and the parties have agreed for settlement of the dispute under the cheque is for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and both the complainant and accused having voluntarily agreed to settle the dispute for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and having filed the joint memo before the trial court. Now the appellant having not complied with the terms of the joint memo has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment passed by the trial court. The trial court on the admissions made by the appellant by filing the joint memo before the trial court, has convicted the accused for the amount agreed by the appellant in the joint memo for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-. The appellant / accused having voluntarily admitted that he is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- out of Rs.5,00,000/-, now cannot contended that she has signed the joint memo under coercion and undue influence and she is not liable to pay amount to the complainant. The accused having voluntarily admitted and filed joint - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22777 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024 memo before the trial court and she having not alleged any undue influence or coercion before the trial court while filing the joint memo, now she cannot contend the same and prefer the appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court. The trial Court accepting the joint memo filed by the parties having taken the same on record, the trial Court has passed the judgment u/s.264 of Cr.P.C. The appellant has not made out sufficient ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court in C.C.No.961/2019. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in the ‘negative’.” Even on perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court what is noted by the Appellate Court in above para is forth coming from the record. The petitioner –accused and her counsel were present on the date of filing said joint memo before the trial Court and they affixed their signature on the order sheet and also on the joint memo stating that they voluntarily agreed to pay amount to the complainant by filing joint memo and agreed for installments. Even though the judgment has been passed by the trial Court on 23.10.2019 and the appeal came to be filed on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22777 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024 17.12.2021 as the petitioner –accused has not paid the settlement amount within 06 months i.e., before April - 2020. It appears that the petitioner as after thought has come with false allegation of coercion and undue influence. 7. The appellate Court has rightly considered the said aspect and gave finding as noted in para No.17 (supra) of the impugned judgment. Considering the all these aspects, there are no grounds to entertain this Criminal Revision Petition. 8. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0