- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26504 CRL.RP No. 1180 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1180 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI S CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT MUGALUR VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135 …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVA T, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. D C LAKSHMIKANTHA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT CHIKKA THIRUPATHI VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 160 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RASHEED KHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.111/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26504 CRL.RP No. 1180 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that the accused is the friend of her husband and also well acquainted with the complainant. The accused approached the complainant in the month of November 2019 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to solve his family problems agreeing to repay the same within three months and issued the post dated Cheque in connection with the said transaction. Hence, the complainant paid the said amount. When the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Thus, notice was issued to the accused but he did not comply with the demand. Hence, a complaint was given and cognizance was taken and accused was secured. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26504 CRL.RP No. 1180 of 2025 accused took up the defence before the Trial Court that cheque was misused by the complainant since the same was given in connection with the chit transaction. But in order to substantiate the said defence, nothing was placed on record and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court in paragraph 12. The appellate Court also in detail taken note of the admission on the part of the petitioner regarding issuance of cheque in paragraph 13 and also taken note of presumption under Section 118 and 139 of N.I. Act and comes to the conclusion that presumption was not rebutted under Section 139 of N.I. Act and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 3. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the material on record. The defence of the accused is that the complainant and her husband were doing chit business and that accused had participated in chit of the complainant and used to pay Rs.30,000/- per month and given the blank signed Cheque - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26504 CRL.RP No. 1180 of 2025 in that connection and the same is not taken note of by both the Courts. 4. Having considered the material on record, it discloses that the petitioner has not substantiated his defence substantiating that in connection with the chit transaction, he has issued the subject matter of the Cheque and the said Cheque was misused by the complainant. Thus, the defence remains as defence. When the defence is not substantiated, the question of considering the same in exercising revisional jurisdiction does not arise. Hence, the order of both the Courts is not suffers from any illegality or correctness. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN