- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31992 CRL.RP No. 1051 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1051 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. M/S REHAN ENTERPRISES, NO.69/3, FIRST FLOOR, A STREET, ANANDRAO EXTENSION, 6TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560009, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. WASEEM. 2. WASEEM, PROPRIETOR, M/S REHAN ENTERPRISES, NO. 69/3, FIRST FLOOR, A STREET, ANANDRAO EXTENSION, 6TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560009. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT USHA S M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R ANIL RAJ, S/O. LATE. RAJASHEKARAIAH, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS 1(a) B.C.GIRIJA, W/O LATE R ANIL RAJ, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31992 CRL.RP No. 1051 of 2018 1(b) KAVYA ANIL, D/O LATE R ANIL RAJ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.955, KAVYA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, KOGILU MAIN ROAD, PAPANNA LAYOUT, MARUTHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR THE LRS OF R1(a) & (b)) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.1514/2017 DATED 18.08.2018 PASSED BY THE LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.B. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.8047/2012 DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED BY XII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITIONER BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31992 CRL.RP No. 1051 of 2018 ORAL ORDER This petition is arising from the concurrent finding for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act, 1881'). 2. Cheques said to have been issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent for Rs.15.00 lakhs and Rs.5.00 lakhs are dishonoured and alleging an offence under Section 138 of Act, 1881, the respondent has lodged one complaint which is later registered as C.C.No.8047/2012 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 3. The complainant has stated that he had lent Rs.20.00 lakhs to the accused as a hand loan and it is his contention that Rs.10.00 lakhs was lent on 26.03.2011 and Rs.5.00 was rent on 31.03.2011. 4. The complainant states that the accused has issued receipts on 26.03.2011 and 31.03.2011 for having received cash. It is further stated that accused has agreed to repay the amount within 60 days and also issued three post dated cheques for Rs.5.00 lakh each. Complainant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31992 CRL.RP No. 1051 of 2018 states that all the three cheques are dishonoured and thereafter, notices was issued to the accused. Accused did not repay the amount. After complying all the requirements under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, complaint is lodged. 5. Accused disputed the liability and matter was contested. Later, a joint memo is filed by the complainant and the accused wherein accused agreed to pay Rs.40.00 lakhs within three months. It is stated by the complainant that in consideration of receipt of Rs.40.00 lakhs to be paid by the accused, the wife of the complainant who had also filed a criminal case against the accused for the dishonour of cheque issued in the name of complainant's wife agreed to withdraw her complaint. 6. It is stated that Rs.5.00 lakhs is paid by the accused and balance amount is not paid and thereafter, accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court contending that settlement is not fair and he did not agree for the settlement. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31992 CRL.RP No. 1051 of 2018 7. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Thereafter, both parties have led evidence and Trial Court has concluded that the liability and transaction is established. 8. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.20,40,000/- and out of the said amount Rs.20,35,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and in default of payment of fine, the Trial Court imposed simple imprisonment for six months. 9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. Even before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. 10. Hence, the present petition. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the transaction is not established. The petitioner/accused seriously doubted the capacity of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31992 CRL.RP No. 1051 of 2018 petitioner to pay Rs.15.00 lakhs as hand loan. Despite the complainant's capacity to advance hand loan of Rs.15.00 lakhs is seriously doubted, the petitioner has failed to produce the records to establish the transaction and his capacity to pay Rs.15.00 lakh towards hand loan. It is the contention of the petitioner that her signature on the cheques were forcibly taken in the presence of police. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the transaction is not in dispute. It is stated in the reply notice issued by the petitioner/accused that he had repaid Rs.22.00 lakhs to the complainant and thereafter, the complainant has misused cheques issued by the accused and this defense of repayment is not established and the presumption available under Section 139 of the Act, 1881 is not rebutted. 13. It is also urged that the contention relating to the capacity of the complainant to lend Rs.15.00 lakhs as hand loan is not raised on earlier occasions, and it is raised for the first time before this Court. It is also urged that admitting - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31992 CRL.RP No. 1051 of 2018 the liability, petitioner had signed a joint memo to repay Rs.40.00 lakhs and though the order has been set-aside by the Appellate Court on earlier occasion, the document signed by the petitioner can be used as a corroborating evidence to support the case of the complainant/respondent. 14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 15. Petitioner/accused replied to the notice issued under Section 138 of Act, 1881 disputing the liability. However, in the said reply notice it is noticed that he has not disputed the capacity of the complainant to pay the amount. On the other hand, petitioner has raised a contention that he has repaid Rs.22.00 lakhs in cash to the complainant in the presence of the police. The contention relating to payment of Rs.22.00 lakhs in cash is not established. Same is not elicited in the cross examination of the complainant and accused has not led any evidence to substantiate the contention. Under the circumstances, this Court has to hold - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31992 CRL.RP No. 1051 of 2018 that the contention relating to incapacity of the complainant to lend Rs.15.00 lakhs as hand loan has to be rejected. 16. In addition, the contention that the complainant was not capable of lending Rs.15.00 lakhs in cash cannot be accepted as such a contention was not raised before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Such contention cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in a proceeding under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 17. Both Trial Court and the Appellate Court have held that the loan transaction is established and the defense of misuse of cheques and repayment of loan amount are not established by the accused. 18. On considering the materials placed on record more particularly, the payment receipts signed by the petitioner and also the cheques which have been dishonoured which are admittedly signed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that no grounds are made out to interfere under Section 397 Cr.P.C. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31992 CRL.RP No. 1051 of 2018 19. Trial Court had imposed fine of Rs.20,40,000/- in respect of dishonour of three cheques amounting to Rs.15.00 lakhs. The cheques are of the year 2011. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and has reduced the fine amount and sentenced accused to pay fine of Rs.15,05,000/-. 20. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order without there being any appeal by the complainant for enhancing the fine amount. It cannot be said that the fine amount imposed is unreasonable. 21. Accordingly, petition is dismissed confirming the sentence passed by the Appellate Court. 22. Thirty days time is granted to the petitioner to pay the balance amount. 23. Amount in deposit if any, shall be released in favour of the complainant/respondent. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32