- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28609 CRL.RP No. 900 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.900 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SHIVAPRASAD SHETTY S/O M.K. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.201 SHEKHAR RESIDENCY KODIALBAIL ROAD, URWASTORE MANGALURU, D.K.-575006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESHKUMAR RAO K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VINAY KUMAR K., S/O K. BHOODEVA RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT TARETHOTA, MAROLI MANGALURU-575005. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.04.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.225/2025 AND THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.04.2025 IN CC.NO.1630/2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JMFC (V COURT), MANGALURU, D.K., CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER OF CHARGE LEVELED AGAINST HIM. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28609 CRL.RP No. 900 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 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court. 2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts. The Trial Court while considering the material on record taken note of defence which was taken disputing the claim of the complainant and the Trial Court while considering the material, extracted the admissions on the part of P.W.1. In the case on hand, only cross-examination of P.W.1 was made, but not led any defence evidence and there is no rebuttal evidence and the suggestion made to P.W.1 that Cheque was given to one Mr. Srinivas Patel and not to the complainant was categorically denied. However, the Trial Court also taken note in paragraph No.17 that while cross-examining P.W.1, very suggestion was made to P.W.1 that at the time of entering into an agreement i.e., the document of Ex.P20, Ex.P1-Cheque was given. Considering this, the Trial Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28609 CRL.RP No. 900 of 2026 comes to the conclusion that the case of complainant is established by making such a suggestion, except mere denial of the documents Exs.P19 and P20 being concocted, the accused has failed to raise a probable defence, in order to rebut the presumption, but the very suggestion takes out the defence of the accused and that there is no preponderance of probabilities. 3. Even, the First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record in paragraph No.22 observed that admittedly, when the Cheque belongs to the account of the accused and signature found on it are not under dispute, the onus shifts on the accused to prove his defence and also taken note that while cross-examining P.W.1, suggestions are made referring the document of Ex.P20. The First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.23 taken note of the contention and also the judgment of the Apex Court in INDUS AIRWAYS PVT. LTD. VS. MAGNUM AVIATION PVT. LTD. reported in (2014) 12 SCC 539, wherein it was held that “the Cheque issued without crystallized liability does not attract Section 138” and considering the principle, in paragraph No.24 considered the very admission, particularly referring the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28609 CRL.RP No. 900 of 2026 document of Ex.P20 which was executed on 17.11.2020 and further handing over the 4 Cheques, which are marked by P.W.1. Further, it is also to be noted that the fact that the accused was having the agreement in his favour executed by P.C. Srinivas Rao as per Ex.P19 is also not disputed by the accused. When such being the case, Ex.P18 is also not under dispute. Taking note of all these facts and circumstances and evidence, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the material on record and it is the specific defence of the petitioner that Ex.P1-Cheque was given to one Mr. Srinivas Patel, who had executed agreement of sale in favour of petitioner and also authorized him to sell the property, taking advantage of the same, the respondent by colluding with Srinivas Patel, as there was dispute between the petitioner and Srinivas Patel, at his instance, made a false claim. With regard to this aspect also, the Trial Court in paragraph No.17 discussed the defence. The First Appellate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28609 CRL.RP No. 900 of 2026 Court considered the material on record, particularly when the suggestion was made to P.W.1 admitting the document of Ex.P20 and Ex.P1-Cheque was given in respect of Ex.P20- agreement. 5. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition and the scope of revision petition is very limited and this Court has to only examine legality and correctness of the judgment of both the Courts and the same is not warranted in the case considering the material on record and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Therefore, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30