- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46347 CRL.RP No. 252 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 252 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SMT. KAMINAI CORREA D/O YESUDASS F. AGE ABOUT 48 YERS R/A NO.154, 8TH CROSS WILLIAMS TOWN BENGALURU - 560046. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MATHEW P M., ADVOCATE) AND: M RAMA SUBBA REDDY S/O. M. CHINNA SUBBA REDDY AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO 28 GROUND FLOOR 4TH CROSS PAPAIAH LAYOUT NEAR DEVAMATHA CENTRAL SCHOOL HORAMAVU, BENGALURU - 560043 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V ANAND, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY 26tH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.25075/2017 DATED 29.01.2020 DIRECT THE ISSUANCE OF PROCESS TO THE RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46347 CRL.RP No. 252 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.04.2017 passed by LVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in C.C.no.53747/2014 confirmed in judgment dated 29.01.2020 passed by XXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru in Crl.A.no.25075/2017, this Revision Petition is filed. 2. Sri Mathew P.M., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Revision Petition is filed against concurrent judgments convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI ACT'). It was submitted that respondent (complainant) had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against accused alleging that on 02.04.2011 accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for business commitments and promised to repay same within 20 months with interest at 2% per month. In support of said transaction, she had executed a mortgage deed in respect of property bearing Flat no.3, ground floor, Nandi Villa Sy.no.107 & 108, Site no.70, Khata no.861, Kammanahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46347 CRL.RP No. 252 of 2021 3. It was further alleged that accused failed to pay interest every month, as promised and on repeated demand by complainant, she had issued cheque bearing no.038613 dated 01.02.2014 for Rs.8,40,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Victoria Road, Bangalore, which when presented returned dishonoured with endorsement 'account closed' on 06.02.2014 and despite service of demand notice, got issued by complainant, accused had failed to reply or make payment and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, a private complaint was filed. On appearance, accused had sought to be tried. Thereafter complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Accused was appraised of incriminating material which she denied and her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Though accused stepped into witness box as D.W.1, no documents were marked. 4. It was submitted accused had set up substantial defence denying relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused, as mortgage transaction with respect of money was with complainant, but with Venkata Rama Reddy - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46347 CRL.RP No. 252 of 2021 and even payment was made by said Venkata Rama Reddy. It was further submitted that petitioner contended that Ex.P-1 mortgage deed contained arbitration clause and instead of invoking same, prosecution under Section 138 of N.I. Act was launched. 5. Insofar as contention denying relationship of creditor and debtor, it was submitted that payment of money under mortgage deed was made by Venkata Rama Reddy and complainant herein had arrived at Sub-Registrar's Office as a witness. It is also nextly contended that Ex.P1 contains arbitration clause, which was not invoked. 6. It was submitted that Trial Court failed to consider same in proper perspective and proceeded to convict accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and same was confirmed by Appellate Court without proper re- appreciation. Thus, impugned judgments suffered from perversity and called for interference. 7. On other hand, Sri V.Anand, learned counsel for respondent - complainant opposed Revision Petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46347 CRL.RP No. 252 of 2021 8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned judgments and copies of exhibits made available for perusal. 9. From above, it is seen that accused is challenging concurrent orders convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of perversity of findings. Insofar as first contention about absence of relationship of creditor and debtor, it is seen, while passing impugned judgment, Trial Court observed that accused had admitted her signature on Ex.P2 – cheque. She also admitted execution of Ex.P1 – registered Mortgage Deed. Perusal of mortgage deed would indicate that it was executed in favour of respondent - complainant on receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant. Though receipt of consideration is alleged to have been made by Venkata Rama Reddy, receipt of consideration from third party at instance of complainant would be in accordance with law and therefore, denial of transaction between accused and complainant would be untenable. 10. It is also seen that there is no dispute about receipt of Ex.P4 – demand notice, wherein complainant has narrated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46347 CRL.RP No. 252 of 2021 entire basis for demand. It is seen that no reply is issued. This would justify drawing of inference against accused. Indeed as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rangappa v.Mohan, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, there would be no need to lead specific evidence to substantiate probable defence and it would be open for accused to do same in cross-examination of complainant and his witnesses and from material produced by complainant. 11. In instance case, since execution of Ex.P1 - mortgage deed is admitted and there is no material placed on record to indicate that transaction was actually with Venkata Rama Reddy, who is also not examined as a witness, it cannot be stated that accused upset presumption available under Section 139 of NI Act. 12. Insofar as second contention that mere inclusion of an arbitration clause in mortgage deed prohibits complainant from proceeding under provisions of NI Act, when offence under Section 138 of NI Act is committed, remedy under NI Act would be in addition to other remedies. Therefore, said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46347 CRL.RP No. 252 of 2021 contention would not hold much water. No authorities are cited in support of said contention. 13. Thus, it is not established that impugned judgments suffer from perversity or are contrary to provisions of statute to attract exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of CrPC. Revision petition is therefore, dismissed. In view of disposal of petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18