- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8754 CRL.P No. 8678 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8678 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S. VIJAYAS VENTURES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.999-A, PERODY HOUSE, MSRS NAGAR, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, IIM POST, BENGALURU - 560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. G.B. VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF SRI. NARASHIMHAPPA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. Y.H. PRATHAP REDDY @ Y.H. PRATHAP AGED 47 YEARS, SON OF SRI. P. HANUMA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.65, 11TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.05.2025 PASSED IN THE CRL. REV. PET. 120/2023 Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8754 CRL.P No. 8678 of 2025 PASSED BY THE LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-56) AT BENGALURU AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 11.01.2023 IN CC.NO.2926/2018 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL. SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-10) AT BENGALURU TO THE EXTENT OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION UNDER SEC.357(1)(b) OF CR.PC THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. N. Jagadish Baliga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court passed in Crl.R.P.No.120/2023. The petitioner is the complainant, the respondent is the accused. The two have a transaction, the transaction leads the complainant to the concerned Court for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8754 CRL.P No. 8678 of 2025 Instruments Act, 1881 ('the NI Act' for short). The concerned Court in C.C.No.2926/2018, passes the following order: "ORDER Acting under section 255 (2) of Criminal procedure Code, accused is here by convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25,10,000/-. In default thereof accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for the term of 6(Six) months. Acting under section 357(1) (b) of code of criminal procedure, is it ordered that, Rs.25,00,000/- therefrom shall be paid to the complainant as a compensation, remaining fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- is defrayed to the state for the expenses incurred in the prosecution. Office is directed to supply free copy of the judgment to the accused. The bail bond shall stand cancelled. Against the said order, it transpires that the complainant prefers a revision contending that the receipt of Rs.25,00,000/- should not come in the way of his contesting the suit for specific performance. The said revision comes to be rejected by the following order: "21. I have gone through the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court. The trial court has scrutinized the materials available on record and has come to the right conclusion and passed the judgment of conviction by exercising its power to impose sentence as provided under law. The trial court has rightly appreciated the materials and come to the right conclusion. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the trial court. Therefore, this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8754 CRL.P No. 8678 of 2025 revision sans merit and liable to be rejected. Hence, the aforesaid points are answered in the NEGATIVE." The complainant is before the Court seeking the same prayer. He would submit that he has not withdrawn the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- that is deposited before the concerned Court on the score that it should not cause prejudice to him in the original suit seeking a decree of specific performance. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this is exactly what the Court also has ordered at paragraph No.13. 4. The paragraph No.13 reads as follows: "13. The complainant and his counsel submits that they have filed suit O.S.No.937/2021 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal and contention of the both parties with respect to the said suit are kept open and they are at liberty to contest the matter in accordance with law." 5. Therefore, I only deem it appropriate to dispose the petition amplifying what is already observed by the concerned Court. The withdrawal of the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- by the petitioner will not come in the way of his pursuing and contesting the suit for specific performance, which is OS.No.937/2021. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8754 CRL.P No. 8678 of 2025 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30