- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 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.1868 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SHRAVANI D/O KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A. NO.159, 1ST STAGE BRUNDAVANA BADAVANE MYSORE-570002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.MANOJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. B T JAYANTHI W/O CR MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A. RAJALAKHMI NILAYA VIVEKANANDA ROAD 1ST CROSS, BEHIND DENTAL COLLEGE VIDYA NAGAR HASSAN-573201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NISHANTH S K, ADVOCATE) This CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 of BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CRl.a.NO.96/2024 (ANNEXURE -F) DTD. 11.07.2025 PASSED Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025 BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN AND ETC. 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 both the complainant and accused known to each other. In the month of May, 2016 the accused approached the complainant seeking hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- for her immediate financial exigencies. Considering the relationship between the parties, hand loan was given by the complainant on 05.05.2016 to the accused and in turn, the accused issued the subject matter of cheque. When the same was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Thus, notice was given and the same was returned with an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025 endorsement ‘not claimed’. The notice issued to the residential address of the accused was served on her but she failed to comply with the demand. Hence, complaint was given and cognizance was taken. 3. The accused appeared before the Trial Court. The complainant got marked the subject matter of cheque before the Trial Court and the same is not in dispute. Only defence of the accused that the complainant had taken signed blank cheque from the accused as a security towards loan which was borrowed by her. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that defence was not substantiated by placing any cogent material before the Court, the only documents placed before the Trial Court while adducing the evidence are Aadhar card, summons, order sheet and application and certificate in O.S.No.606/2018 at Ex.D1 to D5, except this, nothing was placed on record. Hence, the Trial Court accept the case of the complainant and comes to the conclusion that not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025 rebutted the case of the complainant under Section 139 of N.I. Act. 4. The appellate Court also considering the grounds which have been urged in the appeal particularly, in paragraph 24 comes to the conclusion that issuance of cheque is not in dispute and dishonour of the cheque is also not in dispute as well as issuance of notice was also not in dispute. Thus, the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 5. The records discloses that the specific defence was taken that cheque was issued as a security when loan was availed but the same was not substantiated by leading cogent evidence. The scope of the revision is very limited. Only this Court has to examine the legality and correctness of finding of both the Courts. Unless the order impugned of both the Courts suffers from its legality and correctness, the question of exercising revisional jurisdiction does not arise. In the case on hand, issuance - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025 of cheque is not in dispute and service of notice also not in dispute and the defence which was taken was also not substantiated. Hence, both the Courts have taken note of the same. Thus, I do not find any ground to exercise the revisional jurisdiction and there is no ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN