- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47054 CRL.RP No. 1658 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1658 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S RADIANT JASMINE PROPERTIES REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS R/A 590, 14TH CROSS, JP NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. 2. MR M RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, S/O M DEVA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A "SREENILAYLAM" NO.257, 7TH MAIN, DOLLARS COLONY, J P NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI K V SATEESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S PARAG FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED R/A NO 302 EDEN PARK, 20, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT-SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 17.11.2025) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.621/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47054 CRL.RP No. 1658 of 2025 CITY (CCH-69) AND CONVICTION ORDER DTD 12.04.2023 IN C.C.NO.219/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ACMM, AT BENGALURU (SCCH-12) FOR THE O/P/U/S 138 OF NI ACT AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRL.RP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 passed by LXVIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-69), in Crl.A.no.621/2023 confirming order dated 12.04.2023 passed by ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-12), in CC.no.219/2020, this revision petition is filed. 2. There is delay of 155 days in filing this revision petition. I.A.no.1/2025 is filed for its condonation. Though various reasons are assigned for condonation, however, in order to satisfy conscience, it is found fit to examine revision petition on merits. 3. Sri KV Sateesh Chandra, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that this revision petition is against concurrent findings convicting petitioners (accused) for offence - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47054 CRL.RP No. 1658 of 2025 punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short). 4. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that complainant is a Private Limited Company carrying on business of providing various financial services and accused no.2 had availed financial assistance from complainant on behalf of accused no.1 whereunder complainant-company had lent sum of Rs.3,20,00,00/- on 15.02.2017. It was also stated that on same day, a Mortgage Deed was also executed by accused. For repayment of said loan, accused no.1 had entered into Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU' for short) on 28.04.2017, as per which, property to be developed by accused was to be shared in ratio of 40% to complainant and 60% to accused. Thereafter, accused received Rs.1.19 Crores on different dates from 01.04.2017 to 03.02.2021. When accused failed to comply with conditions mentioned in MoU and failed to develop property and agreed to return amount with interest, damage and loss of profit. To said effect, agreement was signed on 28.02.2019, wherein accused agreed to pay a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47054 CRL.RP No. 1658 of 2025 Rs.6,95,00,000/- along with future interest from 01.01.2019 at 1.75% per month with interest compounded quarterly. It was submitted, accused no.2 being authorized signatory of accused no.1 had issued a cheque bearing no.004964 dated 24.09.2019 for Rs.50 Lakhs drawn on Andhra Bank, Bannerghatta Branch, Bengaluru, in favour of complainant, which when presented for collection, returned with endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer' on 20.11.2019 and even after demand notice dated 27.11.2019 was served on accused, they failed to repay amount within time, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 5. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. On behalf of complainant, its Senior Executive deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P9. It was submitted, due to ill-health of accused's aged mother, he was indisposed and unable to attend proceedings. Therefore, his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was dispensed with. His evidence taken as nil and the trial Court proceeded to pass impugned order of conviction. It was submitted, even appeal filed came to be dismissed without proper consideration of peculiar condition of accused, which had led to his inability to avail opportunity of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47054 CRL.RP No. 1658 of 2025 defending himself and dismissed appeal. Aggrieved by said judgment, this revision petition was filed. 6. It was submitted, in relation to financial transactions, there was MoU executed between parties which contained clause for arbitration in case of dispute. It was submitted, instead of availing said remedy, complainant had chosen to initiate said proceedings. It was further submitted, complaint filed by complainant alleging accused to have committed offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC apart from instant proceedings ended with Police filing 'B' Report. It was submitted, accused was unable to complete development project due to prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, there were just considerations for alleged default. On above grounds, sought for setting aside impugned judgment. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused impugned judgment. 8. From above, it is seen that this revision petition is admittedly against concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47054 CRL.RP No. 1658 of 2025 & Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope for interference against concurrent findings would be normally confined to examining whether findings suffer from perversity or are contrary to statutory provisions of law. 9. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court took note of in support of his case, PW.1 had produced Board Resolution, original cheque, Bank Endorsement, Demand Notice along with postal acknowledgment as well as certified copy of Loan Agreement as Exs.P1 to P9. Admittedly, accused did not even participate in proceedings, failed to cross-examine PW.1, appear for recording of his statement under Section 313 of CrPC as well as failed to lead rebuttal evidence. Existence of transactional relationship of creditor and debtor between parties was established not only by oral testimony but also by Ex.P9 - Loan Agreement. Issuance of cheque is towards repayment of said loan acknowledged in Ex.P9. There is no dispute about presentation of cheque, its dishonour, issuance of demand notice and failure of accused to repay amount. Thus, necessary foundational facts for recording finding for conviction were noted by trial Court. Though inability of accused to avail opportunity is pleaded, nothing prevented accused from - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47054 CRL.RP No. 1658 of 2025 availing said opportunity in appeal. Appellate Court, on independent re-appreciation, confirmed judgment passed by trial Court. Though several grounds are urged in this revision petition, there is no material to substantiate same. Thus, impugned judgments are not established to be suffering from perversity or contrary to statutory provisions so as to invite interference. 10. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served in condoning delay. I.A.no.1/2025 is rejected and consequently, revision petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal, I.A.no.2/2025 does not survive for consideration and same stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16