- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26842 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.664 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE RANGAPPA R/AT D.NO.23 RANGAPPA BUILDING SAMPANGAPPA LAYOUT 2ND CROSS, MATHIKERE BENGALURU-560054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KAVITHA K.S., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O LATE N. JAYADHAV R/AT NO.15 AND 16 B.T. NAGARAJ LAYOUT DODDABETTAHALLI ROAD VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 097. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 28.01.2026 PASSED BY THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN CC NO.24193/2022 DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY THE XVIII ADDL. CMM, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26842 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2026 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 and I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that one Mr.J.K. Lakshminarayana and his family are family friends and they are residing in the same area. In the first week of January, 2021, the accused approached the complainant through J.K.Lakshminarayana for hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of urgent financial crunch. Considering his request, in the first week of January, 2021 by way of cash to the accused advanced Rs.3,00,000/- and the accused received the said amount and assured to repay the amount within six months. But, he did not kept up his promise and when the complainant made several requests and demand, the accused has paid Rs.50,000/- by way of Cheque and for remaining amount, he has issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- dated 25.04.2022 and also assured that cheque will be honoured. When the same was presented, it was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26842 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2026 dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, issued the demand notice. The notice was duly served and despite service, the accused did not make payment. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint. The Trial Court taken cognizance and secured the accused and even though accused is represented through counsel, he did not choose to cross- examine the witness P.W.1. Hence, Trial Court convicted and sentenced and accused. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal is also filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also having considered the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 4. Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that matter may be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and no opportunity was given to cross- examine the witness. 5. Having considered the material on record, though opportunity was given, the complainant did not cross-examine the witness and even no effort is made before the First - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26842 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2026 Appellate Court. Hence, the First Appellate Court also considering the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. When such being the case, when there is no cross-examination and also material discloses that having received the money made part payment by way of cheque to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and for the remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- cheque was given, the same was dishonored and notice was also issued and the same was served and no reply was given and even in the cross- examination also, not set up any defence. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to consider the revision and the scope of revision petition is limited and only if the judgment of Trial Court and First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness, then only the Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction or otherwise, question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to consider and admit the revision petition. 6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26842 CRL.RP No. 664 of 2026 ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37