- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27526 CRL.RP No. 892 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 892 OF 2026 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. S. L. SHANTHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LINGAPPA, R/O VIDYANAGARA- 572 214, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TOWN, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. THRIMURTHY K P,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. M. SRIDHAR S/O K.B. MARULASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO.1236, B H ROAD, HULIYAR TOWN AND HOBLI, 572218, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W SEC.401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27526 CRL.RP No. 892 of 2026 DATED 30.12.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.39/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF NI ACT 1881 CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2026 PASSED BY THE V ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE TUMKURU (SITTING AT TIPTUR) IN CRL.A.NO.10002/2025 BY ALLOWING THE CRL.RP.I.A.NO.1/2026 FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND BAIL. 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. 2. Heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 3. The factual aspects of the case of the complainant before the trial Court are that the accused entered into a registered memorandum of understanding dated 02.04.2018 at Bangalore in respect of Kammanahalli Sy.No.39/1 total extent being 1 acre, out of which the accused agreed to sell 6 guntas and received - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27526 CRL.RP No. 892 of 2026 Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty five lakhs only) through the complainant’s bank account under the said registered memo of understanding. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the accused has no right over the said property and has played fraud on the complainant and received the aforesaid amount in order to make wrongful gain. When the complainant demanded the amount to repay the said amount, issued the subject matter of cheque for an amount of Rs.26,25,700/- dated 03.07.2020 towards the part payment of the aforesaid amount and when the said cheque was presented, an endorsement was issued “account was closed”. The complainant initiated the proceedings against the revision petitioner and the petitioner not disputed the issuance of cheque -Exhibit C1 so also Ex.C3- Memorandum of Understanding. The trial Court by considering the material available on record, taken note of the fact that after issuance of the Cheque, he has closed the account before its presentation. Further, the trial Court in paragraph No.13, considered the same in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27526 CRL.RP No. 892 of 2026 detail and convicted the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.Act’ for short) and the same is challenged before the appellate Court in criminal appeal in Criminal Appeal No.10002/2025. The appellate Court also having considered the material on record particularly the documents at Ex.C1 to Exhibit C3 documents, substantiated Ex.C1-cheque which was issued towards legally recoverable debt and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.28 in detail and confirmed the same. 4. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The counsel also vehemently contend that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not properly considered the contents of Ex.C3-memo of understanding and the very evidence of P.W.1 gives different version and both the Courts have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27526 CRL.RP No. 892 of 2026 failed to notice the same and creates the doubt. As such, he prays this Court to consider the same. 5. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition as well as the reasoning assigned by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the Cheque at Ex. C1 is not in dispute so also Ex.C3 i.e.,memo of understanding dated 02.04.2018 and evidence of P.W.1 is also very clear that issuance of cheque as well as there was an MOU and the same is considered in paragraph Nos. 11, 12, 13 by the trial Court and so also the appellate Court appreciated the same. The material also discloses that after the issuance of the cheque, account was closed as per the endorsement Ex.C2 and when such material is available on record, I do not find any ground to admit this revision petition and the scope of revision is very limited i.e. only to the extent of examining the legality and correctness of the revision petition. Hence, the same is not warranted in the case on hand considering the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27526 CRL.RP No. 892 of 2026 material on record and reasonings assigned by both the Courts. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43