- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 809 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: M/S R.K. DEVELOPERS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT S-315 SOUTH BLOCK MANIPAL CENTER DICKENSON CENTER DICKENSON ROAD BANGALORE -560001 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR T K RAGAVENDRA S/O T K KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.198 KUMBARA STREET K R PURAM BANGALORE -560036 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. SURESH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 AND: SMT. SELVI @ SELVI KARUNAKARAN W/O KARUNAKARAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.21 ANJANA NILAYAM KANAKADASA ROAD R S PALYA KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560033 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRA KIRAN K, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VEENA T.N, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION IN CRL.A.NO.25298/2019 DATED 12.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.58531/2016 DATED 01.10.2019. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. H. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Kiran K, learned counsel for Ms. Veena T. N. for the respondent. 2. The accused, who has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.58531/2016 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.25298/2019 is the revision petitioner. 3. The facts in the nutshell which are necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, 'N.I.Act'] by the respondent by contending that the accused has executed the Sale Deed on 05.05.2007 in favour of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 complainant in respect of Site No.31, Katha No. 23 carved out of land in Sy.No.53 situated at Sadenahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring 40 feet X 30 feet. 3.2 It is noticed that the accused has registered the same site in favour of a third party without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. On enquiry with the accused about the same and on demanding repayment of the amount paid by the complainant, accused issued a cheque bearing No.001643 dated 20.03.2016 drawn on City Union Bank. Ltd. Yelahanka, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.8,40,000. 3.3 The complainant presented the said cheque, which was dishonoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient". - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 3.4 A legal notice was issued calling upon the accused to make good the amount covered under the cheque. The said notice is not served on the accused with an endorsement "no such person found in the address". Thereafter, complainant sought for action against the accused. 4. The trial Magistrate after completing the necessary formalities, summoned the accused and recorded the plea. The accused was pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 5. Complainant, in order to establish her case, got examined herself as PW1 and placed on record 17 documents which were Exhibit - P1 to Exhibit - P17 comprising of dishonoured cheque, bank endorsement, office copy of the legal notice, four postal receipts, returned postal covers, encumbrance certificate, certified copy of the sale deed, sale agreement, the subsequent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 sale deed dated 05.05.2007, certified copy of the mortgage deed dated 15.06.2007, certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.02.2008, certified copy of the gift deed dated 11.07.2011 and certified copy of the re-conveyance deed dated 17.12.2011. 6. As against the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the complainant, accused for the reasons best known to him did not step into the witness box nor led any rebuttal evidence. 7. On behalf of the accused, however deed of absolute sale was marked as Exhibit - D1. Later, the trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties and noted that the complainant has discharged the initial burden so as to raise presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and in the absence of any proper rebuttal evidence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and imposed fine of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 Rs.13,70,200/- as compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards defraying expense of the State. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.25298/2019. 9. Learned Judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by a considered judgment dated 12.02.2021. Thereafter, accused is before this Court. 10. Mr. H. Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that the cheque in question was not issued towards the repayment of the site inasmuch as the site is already registered in favour of the complainant and it was given as a security which has been mis-utilised by the complainant and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 11. It is further emphasized on behalf of petitioner that the site is still in the name of the complainant and therefore, there is no legally recoverable debt under Exhibit - P1, which has not been appreciated by both the Courts in a proper perspective resulting in miscarriage of justice. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, Exhibit - P1 - Cheque belongs to the accused and the signature found therein is that of the accused. According to the complainant, after registering the aforementioned site in favour of the complainant, accused is said to have sold the very same site in favour of a third party and on enquiry, accused agreed to return the amount spent for the registration of the sale deed and therefore issued the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 cheque in question and thus, there was a legally recoverable debt. 14. Admittedly, cheque is dishonoured for want of funds. To substantiate the case of complainant, sale deed executed by the accused in favour of the complaint and subsequent sale deed in favour of the third party is placed on record. Absolutely, no explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the accused for having sold the same site in favour of a third party after selling the said site in favour of the complainant. 15. Under such circumstances, the theory put forward by the complainant that in order to return the amount spent for purchase of the site, the cheque in question is issued, is probabilised by placing necessary material evidence on record. The learned trial Magistrate therefore has rightly raised the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. No doubt, it is a rebuttable presumption. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 16. In order to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, there is no defence evidence placed on record except marking Exhibit - D1 - sale deed. There is no dispute with regard to the sale deed executed by the accused in favour of the complainant. 17. However, the very same site is sold in favour of a third party. Subsequently, the probative value of Exhibit - D1 loses its significance and therefore the defence taken by the accused that since he has sold the site in favour of the complaint, there is no legally recoverable debt under Exhibit - D1, cannot be countenanced in law. 18. Thus, the recording of a finding by the trial Magistrate that accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, confirmed by the first appellate Court needs no interference. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19661 CRL.RP No. 809 of 2022 19. Accordingly, following order: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RB