Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 90049 (KAR)

SRI. K. N. VENKATESH v. SRI. H. P. VIJAY

CRL.RP/54/2025 · 2025-09-15

Anant Ramanath Hegde

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36712 CRL.RP No. 54 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 54 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. K. N. VENKATESH, SON OF KN N IYENGAR 60 YEARS, OFFICE AT M/S SRI VENTURES LAND DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., NO.82/1, 1ST FLOOR OPP. BANK OF BARODA, DR RAJ KUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR (PRAKASHNAGAR), BENGALURU - 560 010. ALSO AT: NO.115, 2ND CROSS, NHCS LAYOUT, SHAKTHI GANAPATHI NAGAR, BASAVESHWANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ROOPESHA B, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. H. P. VIJAY, S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.23, 6TH CROSS, KAVERI LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARAN B TADAHAL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/11/2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 678/2023 BY THE HONBLE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61) AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 04/05/2023 PASSED IN C.C.NO.13224/2019 BY THE HONBLE XXIII ADDL. CMM, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36712 CRL.RP No. 54 of 2025 BENGALURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner/accused issued in all 5 cheques for Rs.9,00,000/- each, for total sum of Rs.45,00,000/- all nine cheques were dishonoured. 2. The complainant/respondent submits that the complainant intended to purchase the property from the petitioner/accused and paid Rs.45,00,000/- in all in installments on various dates as advance. The petitioner/accused could not sell the property as agreed. Thus, the complainant repudiated the contract and accused agreed to repay the advance consideration amount vide the settlement agreement dated 22.08.2018. Thereafter, nine cheques referred to above have been issued and those cheques have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36712 CRL.RP No. 54 of 2025 been dishonoured and one complaint is filed on account of dishonour of all the cheques. 3. The accused contested the matter and after considering the material evidence placed on record, the Court concluded that the transaction is established and directed the petitioner/accused to pay Rs.46,10,000/- as fine amount and out of which, Rs.46,00,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid as fine to the State. 4. The Court also recorded that 20% of the compensation amount i.e. Rs.9,00,000/- is already received by the complainant/respondent pursuant to the interim order passed by the Trial Court as such, the complainant is entitled to Rs.37,00,000/-. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner/accused. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit that the transaction is not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36712 CRL.RP No. 54 of 2025 established and the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is rebutted. Both Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence placed on record. It is also his further submission that even if the petitioner's contention is to be accepted, the transaction is a pure civil transaction to purchase the property and remedy for the complainant was to file a suit for specific performance as such, he could not have filed a criminal case against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that Ex.P17 the agreement dated 22.08.2018 is seriously disputed and the same is not proved in accordance with law and the Trial Court and the Appellate Court committed an error in placing reliance on the said agreement. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent would submit that the petitioner having agreed to sell the property to the complainant, has received the advance consideration amount of Rs.45,00,000/- and thereafter, he failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant and the property was sold to some other person and said sale deed is produced and same is marked at Ex.D1 and after knowing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36712 CRL.RP No. 54 of 2025 that the property was sold to some other person, the complainant repudiated the contract and thereafter, the accused executed the agreement dated 22.08.2018 agreeing to repay the consideration amount and said document is marked in evidence at Ex.P17 and the same is duly proved. 9. It is his further submission that the signature on the agreement is also admitted as the petitioner/accused has raised a contention that the signature is taken by force. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 11. The initial sale agreement is marked at Ex.P16 which is not in dispute. Ex.P18 is the receipt for having paid the advance sale consideration amount. The petitioner/accused has raised contention that his signature on Ex.P17 is taken by forcing the petitioner/accused. When that is the defence taken the burden is on the petitioner to establish the said contention. However, materials placed on record do not indicate that the complainant had obtained the signature of the petitioner/accused on the settlement agreement at Ex.P17 by force. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36712 CRL.RP No. 54 of 2025 12. It is also noticed that the complainant had entered into an agreement to purchase the property and accused has not sold the property to the complainant. It is also established that the complainant has paid the amount to the accused and accused agreed to repay the consideration amount as the property was sold to some one else. 13. This being the position, both Courts are justified in holding that the transaction is very much established. 14. It is also noticed that the transaction is of the year 2013 and the agreement of the year 2018 provides for repayment. However, the fine amount is only Rs.1,00,000/- above the cheque amount. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the event Court arriving at the conclusion that the judgments passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are in accordance with law, the petitioner/accused be granted six months time to make the payment, considering the fact that the petitioner has already paid Rs.26,00,000/-. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36712 CRL.RP No. 54 of 2025 16. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the submission to extend any time on the premise that the transaction dates back to the year 2013. This Court having considered the contentions raised at the bar has noticed that the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years in case of default and no time frame is fixed to pay the fine amount. 17. Considering the fact that the petitioner is still require to pay Rs.20,00,000/-, it would be just and proper to grant three months time to pay the balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. 18. In case fine amount imposed by the trial court is not paid within three months from today, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years. 19. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of accordingly. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36 ...