- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28559 CRL.RP No. 675 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.675 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI NAGENDRA PRASAD S/O RAGHURAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MUNESWARANAGAR MAIN ROAD KOLAR-563101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI GANESHA G, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MURALI K RAMANUJAM S/O RAMANUJAM K.N. AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT SREE VARADARAJASWAMY DEVALAYA COMPOUND AMMAVARPET KOLAR-563101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. YASHAS K, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 OF BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 10.06.2024 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28559 CRL.RP No. 675 of 2026 LEARNED II ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOLAR IN C.C.NO.57/2020 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.Nos.1/2026 and 2/2026 wherein prayed this Court to condone the delay of 170 day in filing the revision petition and for suspension of sentence and bail respectively. 2. In support of the application for condonation of delay, an affidavit is filed wherein it is stated that another false case was registered in Crime No.15/2015 against him on 02.04.2025 under the Provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and due to the registration of the said false FIR, he was under constant fear and apprehension of arrest. In view of the imminent threat of arrest and possible incarceration, he was constrained to leave Kolar and reside at different places to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28559 CRL.RP No. 675 of 2026 safeguard his liberty. Hence, he could not approach the court within time. 3. This application is resisted by filing statement of objections by the counsel appearing for the respondent stating that the very registration of case clearly exposes that the petitioner is attempting to rely on old, irrelevant events to build a false narrative of imminent threat and he fails to file day to day explanation for the massive delay of 184 days. 4. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application and considering the objections to the said application, it discloses that the case was registered against the petitioner and the same is not disputed by the respondent. Hence, the delay of 170 days is in filing the revision petition is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed. 5. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A.No.2/2026 for suspension of sentence and bail. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28559 CRL.RP No. 675 of 2026 6. Having considered the grounds urged in the application as well as in the revision petition and also considering the judgment of the trial Court, it discloses that a defence was taken by the petitioner that he has not availed any loan from the complainant and also defence was taken that cheque has been stolen by one Anil Kumar, who is none other than close relative of the complainant and through him, the false complaint is filed and according to him, there is absence of material fact for lending capacity of the complainant. It is contented that accused is a person having sufficient means and there was no occasion for him to get the loan from the complainant. However, admitted the signature in the Cheque and also in 313 Statement. The Trial Court, in paragraph 15, taken note that, accused used to sign in different form and comes to the conclusion that when the defence was taken that cheque was stolen, no complaint was given and also no reply was given to the notice when the same was served. Only defence was taken that complaint was filed through this complainant when the cheque was stolen by the friend of complainant Mr. Anil Kumar. But to substantiate the same, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28559 CRL.RP No. 675 of 2026 except oral evidence before the trial Court, nothing is placed on record. 7. The appellate court also discussed in detail by re- appreciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and comes to the conclusion that there is no any rebuttal evidence. Defence which was taken remains as defence and not substantiated defence that cheque was stolen by the friend of the complainant and no preponderance of probabilities made out by the accused. Hence, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 8. Having considered the reasoning assigned by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the scope of revision is very limited. Only this Court has to examine whether the judgment of the trial Court and Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness. Having considered the defence that cheque was stolen, but no complaint was given and also the defence that cheque was stolen by the friend of the complainant one Mr. Anil Kumar, to substantiate the same also, Nothing was placed on record to rebut the evidence of the complainant and cheque is also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28559 CRL.RP No. 675 of 2026 admitted and signature is also admitted. When such being the case, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the revision petition as well as to suspend the sentence for the petitioner so also to admit the revision petition. Hence, I.A.No.2/2026 is dismissed. Consequently, revision petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN