- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30687 CRL.RP No. 1481 of 2025 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.1481 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. DEEPIKA Y V W/O RAVI H M D/O VENKATACHALAPATHY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LOKESH B, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAJKUMAR Y V S/O VENKATACHALAPATHY R/A HUNGENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.75/2023 DATED 30.06.2025 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KOLAR AND ETC. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30687 CRL.RP No. 1481 of 2025 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 dated 15.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.1284/2022 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment of confirmation dated 30.06.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.75/2023 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 both complainant and accused are the brother and sister and there was a sale transaction in respect of Sy.No.171/3 measuring 23.08 guntas of Hungenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk for sale consideration of Rs.23,93,000/- and sale deed was also executed on 03.08.2019. The accused has received the share of the complainant's sale consideration assuring the complainant to pay his share of sale consideration within 6 months from the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30687 CRL.RP No. 1481 of 2025 date of sale deed. After the lapse of 6 months, when complainant made several requests, finally accused has issued the cheque for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement on all the occasions that ‘kindly contact drawer drawee bank and please present again’. Thereafter, the complainant issued the legal notice to the accused through RPAD. Inspite of service of legal notice, accused did not repay the cheque amount. Hence, the complaint is filed and cognizance was taken and accused was secured and she did not plead guilty. 4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and also examined one more witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P7. The incriminating evidence also put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused, on understanding the statement made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denies the same, but did not choose to lead any defence evidence. But examined herself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D3. The Trial Court considering the answer elicited from the mouth of witnesses both PW1 and PW2 as well as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30687 CRL.RP No. 1481 of 2025 DW1 taken note that accused has received an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from Jayamma as advance sale consideration at the time of sale agreement and at the time of registration of sale deed, Jayamma had paid Rs.8,92,000/- to the complainant. The accused has received remaining sale consideration of the complainant by assuring that she would buy a site for the complainant as well as bear the expenses of the marriage of the complainant. But subsequently, she does not do so. When demand was made, the subject matter of cheque was given. The said fact was discussed in the cross examination of DW1 and the same was admitted. In paragraph 20, the trial court taken note of admission on the part of DW1 and also the specific denial of PW1 that the amount is towards the sale transaction and the same was not paid. In paragraph 22, taken note that it is evident from Ex.D1 and D2 that complainant and the accused have executed a registered sale deed in respect of property bearing Sy.No.171 for sale consideration of Rs.23,92,000/- in favour of Jayamma. At the time of execution of the sale agreement, two cheques were given for Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- as advance amount. Ex.D3 statement establishes that cheques were - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30687 CRL.RP No. 1481 of 2025 credited to the account of the accused. Further, at the time of sale deed Rs.8,92,000/- was received by the complainant. DW1 during the cross examination admitted that she has received Rs.15,00,000/- as advance through cheques. Further, it was suggested to DW1 that property was sold for Rs.73,00,000/- and Ex.D2 – sale deed shows only S.R. value of Rs.23,92,000/- but she denied the same. 5. The Trial Court taking into note of Ex.D1 and D2 comes to the conclusion that property was sold for Rs.23,92,000/- and considering this, the court draws inference that the property was sold for Rs.23,92,000/- and not for an amount of Rs.73,00,000/-. However, taking into note of the admission on the part of the complainant that only an amount of Rs.8,92,000/- was received and the sale deed was taken place in the year 2019 itself and the accused has not substantiated her defence. The defence which was taken that cheque was misused also taken note of by the trial Court in paragraph 22 and also taken note that no complaint was given with regard to the misusing of the said Cheque. The Trial Court taken note that no suitable action was taken against her - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30687 CRL.RP No. 1481 of 2025 brother when he was not returned Ex.P1-Cheque. More so, not even after receipt of Ex.P3. Ex.P1-cheque was presented for encashment and also categorical discussion was made in paragraph 30 with regard to there is a total inaction on the part of the accused. If the version of the accused is believable, she would have acted at the earliest point or immediately after the receipt of Ex.P3-notice but she has not done so. No reply was given to the notice. Hence, the Trial Court convicted the accused. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having reconsidered the oral and documentary evidence available on record re-assessed the admission on the part of DW1 as well as PW1 wherein specific averment is made that cheque amount was not paid and the same was given towards the sale consideration and the balance amount which was received by the accused, the same was not paid. When the defence was taken by the accused in the cross- examination that cheque was misused, no action was taken. The same was considered by the appellate court while - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30687 CRL.RP No. 1481 of 2025 answering point numbers 1 to 3 and confirmed the judgment of the trial court. 7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that sale consideration is only Rs.23,50,000/- and already admitted that Rs.8,92,000/- was paid and remaining amount payable is only an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. In order to substantiate the same, not placed any documents in this regard. Though document discloses the sale consideration, but it is the specific case of the accused that cheque was given in 2022 and sale transaction was taken place in 2019. When complainant’s share of sale consideration amount was not paid by the accused, the subject matter of the cheque was given as per Ex.P1. When cheque was bounced and notice was issued, no reply was given. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that balance payable is only Rs.3,50,000/-. When the admission is given that cheque was given and also admitted the relationship between both the complainant and accused as brother and sister, the trial court in detail considered the material on record particularly in paragraphs 19, 20, 22 and 30 and convicted the accused. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30687 CRL.RP No. 1481 of 2025 appellate court also having reassessed the material on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial court. 8. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that she is ready to pay the balance amount. The counsel appearing for the respondent contend that when specific question was put to DW1 regarding the total value of the property, sale consideration, DW1 not disputed the very execution of the sale deed and contend that the amount mentioned in sale deed is Rs.23,92,000/-. If really the sale consideration was Rs.23,92,000/-, what made the accused to issue the cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- in the year 2022 is not substantiated. Under the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to admit the revision petition. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: Order The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN