- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34287 CRL.RP No. 1537 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1537 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI M SHIVARAMU, S/O DODDA MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, 1ST MAIN ROAD, AZAD NAGAR, CHAMARJPET, BENGALURU – 560 018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROOPESHA B,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. YES SQUARE ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY SRI. SREENIVASAN R/AT NO.5, 20TH CROSS, 80 FEET ROAD, 3RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSURU PIN CODE – 570 030. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.10.2024 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.17/2024 FROM THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2023 PASSED IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34287 CRL.RP No. 1537 of 2024 C.C.NO.1795/2021 ON THE FILE OF V JMFC AT MYSURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 138 OF NI ACT. 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 matter is listed for admission. 2. Heard the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The factual matrix of the case of complainant while invoking Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I.Act’) are that accused was working as a sales representative for about 4 years from the year 2016 in complainant's firm. While accused working as sales representative he has collected an amount of Rs.16,01,504/- and used that amount for his personal benefit instead of handing over to the complainant’s firm. As the dispute arose on the above issue, the accused and complainant firm decided to settle the matter amicably in the presence of well-wishers and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34287 CRL.RP No. 1537 of 2024 friends. The complainant’s firm and accused have mutually agreed for his settlement for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- as full and final settlement. As per the settlement, the accused shall pay an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant’s firm. The complainant’s firm has also agreed for the same and there shall be no further and future litigation with respect to the above matter after agreed payments made. Further the accused has agreed to pay the amount and sought for 3 installments and as such, issued 3 cheques for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- each. When the complainant’s firm demanded for the repayment of the amount, the accused requested not to present the cheque. Even after lapse of 2 months, the accused has not paid the amount. Then when the complainant demanded the same, the accused suggested to present those cheques. On presentation of those cheques, the same are returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the notice was issued and no reply was given by the accused. Hence, the complaint - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34287 CRL.RP No. 1537 of 2024 is filed against the accused. The cognizance was taken and the accused was secured. He pleaded not guilty and claims trial. 4. In order to prove the case, the complainant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13. On the other hand, the accused neither examined nor led any defence evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents which have been marked as Exs.P1 to P.13, particularly when P.W.1 was cross examined, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and the same is taken note of in paragraph No.15 of the judgment of the trial Court and when the accused has not led any rebuttal evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentence the accused. The said judgment of the trial Court is challenged before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.17/2024. The appellate Court also taken note of the consent agreement at Ex.P9 clearly shows that the accused has entered into consent agreement with the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34287 CRL.RP No. 1537 of 2024 complainant by stating that Rs.16,01,504/- was collected by him but it was used by him without credit into the account of the complainant. Further, in Ex.P9, it is also mentioned that as the dispute arose between the parties was settled for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and cheques are issued in respect of the liability is concerned, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 5. Now the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the trial Court and appellate Court fails to consider the factual aspects of the case and in order to prove the factum that there was an existence of partnership, no document is produced. But the counsel appearing for the respondent brought to notice of this Court that Ex.P6 i.e., notarized copy of partnership deed, is produced before the Court. Apart from that, the consent agreement at Ex.P9 and the fact that both of them are employer and employee relationship is not disputed and subsequent to misusing of the amount, the agreement was entered into between the parties as per Ex.P9. In - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34287 CRL.RP No. 1537 of 2024 terms of Ex.P9, the cheques are issued. When such being the case, when there is no rebuttal evidence before the Court, the question of entertaining the revision petition does not arise and scope of revision is very limited that this Court can exercise the revision jurisdiction, only if the reasoning of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness and if it leads to the miscarriage of justice. But the same is not warranted in the case on hand. 6. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30