- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12998 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 608 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.BHAGYA W/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A DEVSHANA GUDDA SHRINGERI TALUK SHRINGERI-577139 CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESH D C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.SHIVARAJ K.K. S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A KHANDYA KUDUREGUNDI POST KOPPA TALUK-577 CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.69/2019 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION, SENTENCE AND FINE DATED 02.03.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., N.R.PURA, Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12998 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2021 ITINERATE AT KOPPA IN C.C.NO.124/2018 (OLD NO.173/2012) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT IN C.C.NO.124/2018 (OLD C.C.NO.173/2012) DATED 02.03.2019 AND ACQUIT AND SET THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND SET AT HER LIBERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Jagadeesh D. C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Akarsh Kumar Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Accused who has suffered an order of conviction in CC No.124/2018 (Old No.173/2012) dated 02.03.2019 confirmed in Crl.A.No.69/2019 dated 08.01.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: In respect of the dishonored cheque, criminal prosecution came to be launched by the respondent by approaching the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12998 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2021 jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. with a private complaint. 4. Learned Trial Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record 6 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 6 comprising of original cheque, bank endorsement, office copy of the legal notice, postal receipt and postal acknowledgement. 6. As against the evidence placed on record, accused got examined herself as D.W.1 and one witness by name Thimmi and placed on record ten documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to D.10 comprising of certified copies of cheque, bank endorsement, reply notice, agreement, deposition of D.W.1, order sheet in PC /2013, search mahazar, search list and passbook of the accused. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12998 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2021 7. After conclusion of recording of the evidence, learned Trial Magistrate heard the arguments of the parties in detail and noted that alleged defence of the accused that there was misuse of the cheque by the complainant who being the relative of Banumathi is not established. Therefore, presumption available to the complainant is not rebutted and thus, convicted the accused and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,40,000/- of which sum of Rs.2,39,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and balance sum of Rs.1,000/- towards defraying expenses of the State. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.69/2019 which came to be dismissed on merits. 9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court, in this revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the cheque in question was in fact issued to Banumathi when the complainant and others were forming Sthree Sakthi Sangha and said cheque was in blank - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12998 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2021 which has been misused by Banumathi and got the false case filed through the complainant who is her close relative on account of the dispute between Banumathi and Sangha members and thus sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, Ex.P.1 – cheque belongs to the accused. Though the cheque has been returned with an endorsement that signature differs, accused herself admitts the signature found in Ex.P.1. Admittedly, cheque came to be dishonored. Statutory notice is not complied and there was no reply to the statutory notice. 14. Before the Court, accused has taken a defence that cheque was in fact issued to Banumathi who wanted to form Sangha and there was a dispute and blank cheque obtained from the accused has been misused by the Banumathi through the complainant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12998 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2021 15. To establish the said aspect of the matter, not only accused is examined as D.W.1 but one more witness namely Thimmi is examined as D.W.2. 16. Learned Trial Magistrate bestowed her best attention to the said defence taken by the accused and noted that there is no material placed on record to establish that there existed a sangha and Thimmi is the member of the said Sangha. 17. Further, in respect of the alleged misuse of the cheque by Banumathi through the complainant, no criminal complaint is filed by the accused against the Banumathi or the complainant. 18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Magistrate rightly convicted the accused which has been rightly upheld by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court. 19. Thus, having regard to the revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12998 CRL.RP No. 608 of 2021 20. Hence, following: ORDER i. Revision petition stands dismissed. ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification. iii. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to pay the balance amount till 31.03.2026 failing which the imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored automatically. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39