- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53564 CRL.RP No. 717 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 717 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SRI LAKSHMI SYSTEMS, R/A NO.78/5, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, RAITHARA BEEDHILL, P J EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …PETITIONER [BY SRI DHANUSH M., ADVOCATE] AND: MR. VASANTHA KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, SRI SHARADA AGENCY, 2ND CROSS, JAMBANNA RICE MILL COMPOUND, JAIL ROAD, HOSAMANE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.35/2022 AND JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.3044/2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53564 CRL.RP No. 717 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 17.02.2023 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Shivamogga, in Crl.A.no.35/2022 confirming judgment dated 10.02.022 passed by Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Shivamogga, in C.C.no.3044/2018, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Dhanush M., learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition was by accused challenging concurrent erroneous judgments, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). 3. It was submitted, present proceedings arise out of private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC',) stating that he was running a furniture distribution shop, where accused used to purchase furniture on credit for sale at his retail shop. As on 25.11.2017, he was due a total sum of Rs.4,74,494/- and on demand, had issued cheques no.901581 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53564 CRL.RP No. 717 of 2023 and 901582 dated 31.07.2018 and 16.07.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- and 2,75,000/- respectively, which on presentation, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 02.08.2018 and even when demand notice got issued by complainant on 07.08.2018 was served on 10.08.2018, accused failed to reply or repay amount within time and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charge and sought trial. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P9. And when trial Court apprised accused of incriminating material, he denied same and his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. Thereafter accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D3. Thereafter, trial Court passed impugned judgment convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Even appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed without proper re-appreciation, leading to this revision petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53564 CRL.RP No. 717 of 2023 5. At outset, it was submitted, accused disputed existence of relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused and issuance of Exs.P.1 and 2 - cheques towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. Even then complainant failed to produce record to establish lending of money to accused. Ignoring said omission, impugned order of conviction was passed, which would be contrary to record. 6. Apart from above, cheques in question were given as security for earlier supply of material and for which payment was made. Said cheques were misused in present case. 7. It was further submitted, total of Rs.1,69,755/- i.e. Rs.69,755/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on 06.02.2018 and 26.02.2018 respectively was repaid. But there was no corresponding reduction from claim in question. It was submitted, in cross- examination, PW.1 admitted, excluding same accused was due Rs.3,96,000/-, but amount mentioned in Demand Notice was different i.e. Rs.4,75,000/-. And instead of restricting claim to admitted amount, cheques in question were presented for Rs.4,75,000/-. It is settled legal principle that in case of difference between amount due and amount claimed, conviction - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53564 CRL.RP No. 717 of 2023 would be contrary to Section 56 of NI Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel reported in (2023) 1 SCC 578. 8. It was further submitted, Ex.P.9 - Joint memo dated 14.10.2019 was signed by accused under undue influence of his counsel, as if he had agreed to pay Rs.4,40,000/- in four installments and made part payment of Rs.80,000/-. Without effort on part of complainant to establish due execution of Ex.P9, trial Court virtually enforced it. 9. It was submitted, when accused contended that Ex.P9 was executed under duress, appellate Court dismissed appeal by stating that accused had failed to rebut presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. There was no verification by either of Courts, whether signing of joint memo was voluntary and without undue influence. Above factors would establish that findings of both Courts were without proper appreciation of material on record and suffered from perversity. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53564 CRL.RP No. 717 of 2023 10. On other hand, Sri Prasanna BR., learned counsel for respondent - complainant opposed petition. It was submitted both Courts on appreciation of entire material on record arrived at well reasoned findings, which did not call interference and prayed for dismissal of same. 11. It was submitted, conduct of accused also would not justify interference. It was submitted, during pendency of proceedings before trial Court there was settlement between parties and Joint memo was signed and submitted to Court, agreeing to pay Rs.4,40,000/-. It was submitted, payment of Rs.80,000/- was after filing of Joint memo. Admission by PW.1 that due of amount as Rs.3,60,000/- was deducted from said payment. There was no variation of amount due and claimed at time of filing complaint to justify invocation of Section 56 of NI Act. Trial Court had taken note of same and reduced conviction fine to Rs.3,70,000/-. Further, Ex.P.9 - joint memo itself would nullify denial of legally enforceable debt. In view of above, none contentions would sustain and sought dismissal. 12. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53564 CRL.RP No. 717 of 2023 13. This revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting him for offences punishable under Section 138 of NI Act on ground of perversity as well as on ground of being contrary to provisions of law. 14. Contention about making part payment between date of drawing of cheques and their presentation, it is seen, date of making payment of Rs.69,755/- and Rs.1,00,000/- are on 06.02.2018 and 26.02.2018 respectively. But as per complainant, date of issuance of Exs.P1 and P2 - cheques was in August, 2018 and their presentation was on 02.08.2018. Therefore, said contention would required to be rejected. 15. Though, it is contended that there was failure by complainant to establish execution of Exs.P1 and 2 - cheques were towards repayment of legally enforceable debt and also that cheques were given as security for earlier transaction, both Courts have noted that during pendency of proceedings before trial Court on 14.10.2019, a Joint Memo as per Ex.P9 was filed whereunder, accused agreed to pay Rs.4,40,000/- and had also made part payment of Rs.80,000/-, but thereafter sought to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53564 CRL.RP No. 717 of 2023 wriggle out of same by contending that he was coerced by counsel for complainant and his counsel to sign it, without initiating any action against them and therefore holding that denial of Ex.P9 was not bonafide. Referring to ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel reported in (2022) 11 SCC 705, it was held settlement was binding. 16. Since, no material is produced to establish that any action was initiated against counsel upto filing of this revision, above ratio would hold and all contentions contrary to settlement would require to be rejected. Thus, reasons assigned by both Courts for their respective conclusions are based on detailed examination of material on record and in accordance with law. No case of perversity is established. Hence, no ground for interference, Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg*/AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80