- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8831 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 28 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SRI T.S.MAHESHA S/O T.N.SIDDEGOWDA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.446 38TH CROSS, ROAD, 2ND BLOCK RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 010 AND ALSO AT TAGARE VILALGE & POST BIKKODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 215. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.M.AKANDESHWARA, ADV. FOR SRI MADHUSUDHAN M.N, ADV.) AND: SRI RANGEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA RESIDENT OF ALUR VILLAGE BALLUR POST, AREHALLI HOBLI BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.P. JAYAKUMARA, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 10.10.2017 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.254/2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN AND IMPUGNEDORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01.12.2016 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BELUR IN C.C.NO.678/2012 RESPECTIVELY THEREBY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT. Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8831 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur, in CC.No.678/2012 and the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.No.254/2016. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in CC.No.678/2012 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Belur. It is the specific case of the respondent that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the respondent and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in question bearing No.978700 dated 05.05.2012 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, was issued in his favour which was dishonoured by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8831 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2018 drawee bank when presented for realization. Thereafter, statutory legal notice was got issued on behalf of the complainant and since the petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question inspite of service of notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 4. In the said proceedings, the Trial Court has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine of Rs.8,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 5. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.678/2012 has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.254/2016 by the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, vide judgment and order dated 10.10.2017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8831 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2018 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the respondent- complainant has initiated civil proceedings in O.S.No.102/2013 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Belur for recovery of the amount covered under the cheque in question. The said suit was dismissed and a finding has been recorded in the said suit that the cheque in question was not issued towards discharge of the loan allegedly borrowed by the petitioner from the respondent herein. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.102/2013 dated 13.12.2016 has attained finality. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act was initiated in the year 2012, whereas the suit was filed subsequently in the year 2013. The conviction order was passed prior to the suit being disposed of. Therefore, the finding of the Civil Court in O.S.No.102/2013 does not have any bearing in the present case. He submits that a finding recorded - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8831 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2018 by the Civil Court cannot have a bearing on the criminal case and he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) KAILASH VS ARJUN SINGH & OTHERS - M.Cr.C.No.57102/2021 dated 21.04.2022; (ii) K.G.PREMSHANKA VS INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANOTHER - (2002)8 SCC 87; (iii) LAJI KESHA VAID VS DAYANANDA.R. - CRL.P.No.331/2022 dated 21.10.2024 (iv) GURU GRANTH SAHEB STHAN MEERGHAT VS VED PRAKASH & OTHERS - (2013)7 SCC 622. (v) SURAJ SINGH DHAKAD VS SHRIWANTI DHAKAD - Misc. Crl. Case No.23628/2024 dated 19.11.2024. 8. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act would get attracted in the event the cheque issued by the accused towards legally recoverable debt is dishonoured by the drawee bank. It is not in dispute that the respondent-complainant has filed O.S.No.102/2013 before the jurisdictional Civil Court for recovery of the amount covered under the cheque in question bearing No.978700 dated 05.05.2012 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Belur. In the said suit, Issue no.1 framed by the civil court reads as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8831 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2018 "Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has availed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on 15.05.2012 and in order to discharge the same he has issued post dated cheque bearing No.978700 which drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Belur Branch? 9. Issue no.1 has been answered in the negative in O.S.No.102/2013, and thereby it is held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant has availed loan of Rs.4 lakhs and in order to discharge the same he had issued the post- dated cheque bearing No.978700 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Belur Branch. Undisputedly, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.102/2013 has attained finality. 10. Since a finding has been recorded after a full-fledged trial by the jurisdictional Civil Court in O.S.No.102/2013 that the cheque in question which is the subject matter of the present case was not issued by the petitioner herein towards discharge of the loan borrowed by him from the respondent herein, the impugned judgment and order of conviction cannot be sustained and on this short ground alone, this revision petition has to succeed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8831 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2018 11. The judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent in Kailash's case and Premshanka's case supra, arise out of the first information filed for the offences punishable under the provisions of IPC. The said principle cannot be made applicable to the present case which is filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the accused can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and also a civil suit can be filed for recovery of the amount covered under the cheque in question. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the judgments in Laji Kesha Vaid's case, Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat's case and Suraj Singh Dhakad's case supra. I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down in the said cases and there is no dispute that the accused can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and also a recovery suit can be filed against him. However, in the event adverse finding is recorded in the recovery suit filed before the civil court, the same will have a direct impact on the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8831 CRL.RP No. 28 of 2018 proceedings initiated against the accused based on the very same cheque which is the subject matter of the suit. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 13. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.12.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, Belur, in CC.No.678/2012 and the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Crl.A.No.254/2016, are set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. His bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled. The amount in deposit before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK