- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30690 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.18 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. NAYANA D R D/O SRI RAVI D T AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS C/O MAHESH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH NO.1205, 2ND MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA BANGALORE -560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH S N, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LEELAVATHI M W/O PADMANABHA B AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.57, 3RD CROSS VIDYARANYANAGARA MAGADI ROAD TOLGATE BANGALORE-560023 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR U, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DTD 15.10.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1974/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30690 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2026 LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61) 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 revision petition is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2024 passed in C.C.No.25149/2023 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 15.10.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.1974/2024 by the Appellate Court. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that vide shop lease agreement dated 18.04.2018, the shop bearing No.1205 situated at 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru belonging to the accused relative – Sri Mahesh S/o late Siddaiah was leased/mortgaged to the complainant by receiving the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for total period of 4 years commencing from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30690 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2026 18.04.2018. The said sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the said Mahesh by way of cash. The said agreement dated 18.04.2018 reflects the payment of the said amount by the complainant and the receipt of the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the said Mahesh has been acknowledged. It is further submitted that as per the terms of the said agreement dated 18.04.2018, the lease/mortgage period of four years expired on 18.04.2022. Thereafter, mortgage consideration amount was not repaid by the said Mahesh to the complainant inspite of the complainant being ready to vacate the said premises. The said Mahesh kept postponing the said payment under one pretext or the other. This being the state of affairs, on 23.01.2023, the BBMP authorities seized all the shops including the shop leased to the complainant due to the failure on the part of the property owners i.e., Mahesh and his family members to pay the property tax in respect of the said building. 4. The complainant further states that ever since the said day 23.01.2023, she is not in a position to carry on her business in the said property. The said Mahesh has been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30690 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2026 absconding from 23.01.2023. The complainant was demanding the wife of said Mahesh to return the mortgage/lease amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. At that point of time, Smt. Nayana D. R. daughter of Ravi D. T. accused herein voluntarily came forward to settle the matter with the complainant and issued the subject cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further stated that as per the instructions of the accused, the complainant has presented the said cheque for realisation and the same was returned within an endorsement ‘drawers signature differs’. Thereafter, the complainant has issued the legal notice to the accused calling upon her to pay the amount covered under the cheque within the stipulated period and the same was served to the accused but did not repay the amount. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured before the trial Court and she did not plead guilty. 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, she herself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30690 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2026 complainant and accused filed a joint memo agreeing to settle the dispute out of Court for full and final settlement of Rs.5,00,000/- and accused has agreed to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in one installment on 13.11.2024. The Trial Court considering the joint memo, comes to the conclusion that by filing the joint memo, the accused has admitted the legally enforceable debt as stated by the complainant and granted time to the accused to pay the amount and accepted the case of the complainant that complainant has established that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, convicted the accused. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the appellate Court. The appellant Court also having reassessed the material on record comes to the conclusion that the amount payable is towards the mortgage amount. The accused has admitted her liability before the Trial Court by filing a joint memo. Accused is not permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. Under the rule of estoppel, a person shall not be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30690 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2026 allowed to say one thing at one time and opposite of it at another time and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present petition is filed before this Court. 8. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the Cheque amount is not payable by the revision petitioner since only in order to help the friend i.e., wife of the Mahesh, given the cheque. But both the Courts have fixed the liability on the petitioner and the same is not correct. Hence, the judgment of both the Courts suffers from infirmity. Thus, interference of this Court is required. 9. The counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that both the Courts have considered the material on record in a proper perspective. Hence, it does not require interference of this Court. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30690 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2026 record, it discloses that the counsel not disputes the fact that cheque was given by the accused/revision petitioner. But contends that the same was given only to help the friend. The material discloses that during the pendency of the case, accused had agreed to pay the Cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and joint memo was also filed in this regard and time was also taken for payment as 13.11.2024 but not made the payment. When joint memo was filed admitting liability and date is also fixed to make the payment, the question of considering the grounds urged in the revision petition does not arise. The Trial Court convicted the accused based on the joint memo holding that the accused has admitted the liability and appellate Court also held that once the liability is admitted, under the rule of estoppel, a person shall not be allowed to say one thing at one time and opposite of it at another time. Hence, both the Courts have not committed any error while convicting the accused. The scope and ambit of the revision is very limited. Only if there is any miscarriage of justice in considering the material available on record and also order suffers from legality and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30690 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2026 correctness, then only this Court can exercise its revision jurisdiction. In the case on hand, I do not find any such circumstances since the revision petitioner admitted the liability and issued the cheque and even before the court also admitted the liability and signed the joint memo. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN