- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34679 CRL.RP No. 389 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 389 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI BHARATH BHUSHAN M P S/O PRAKASH M R AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.389, MARUTHI ROAD, SHAKAMBARINAGAR BETWEEN 6TH AND 7TH CROSS BENGALURU-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY M S S/O SIDDAIAH M AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.35, VIVEKANANDA COLONY J.P. NAGAR POST KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560078. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAMANJANEYA V., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARENED LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34679 CRL.RP No. 389 of 2026 CITY IN CRL.A.NO.1279/2024 DATED 06.12.2025 AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVI ACMM, AT BENGALURU CITY IN CC.NO.18425/2022 DATED 14.03.2024 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT ARISING OUT OF PCR.NO.1235/2022 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 matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that accused and complainant were known to each other from childhood. The accused and his father were doing silver smith by keeping shop at Rajamarket at Bengaluru. The complainant is doing the work at Bosch Company. In the first week of January, 2021, the accused and his father had requested and demanded the complainant to arrange an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for his urgent financial difficulties and also assured to repay the amount with interest at 18% per - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34679 CRL.RP No. 389 of 2026 annum and agreed to pay the amount within 5 to 6 months. Only with an intention to help the accused and his father, the complainant has arranged the amount through friends and complainant has paid an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the accused and his father in two installments i.e., on 22.01.2021 an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and on 10.02.2021, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Towards the discharge of liability, the accused had issued the Cheques and when the Cheques were presented for encashment, the endorsement was issued ‘account blocked’ and when the matter was intimated to the accused, he had requested complainant to re-present the Cheques and once again, endorsement was issued ‘account blocked’. The complainant got issued a legal notice, the notice was duly served on the accused and he did not reply to the same. Hence, complainant was filed, cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he did not plead guilty and claims trial. 3. The complainant is examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P9. Though accused appeared through counsel and an opportunity was given to cross-examine, he never cross-examined the witness and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34679 CRL.RP No. 389 of 2026 accused did not appear before the Trial Court. Hence, the Trial Court proceeded to consider the matter, particularly taking note of the evidence of P.W.1 in paragraph Nos.26 and 27 with regard to dishonouring of two Cheques as well as issuance of legal notice which was served and also taken note of endorsement issued that ‘account blocked’ and in paragraph No.28 comes to the conclusion that there is no cross- examination of P.W.1 and the accused has not led any defence evidence and except engaging the counsel has not participated in the proceedings. Hence, the Trial Court considering that there was no reply and also issuance of Cheques are not disputed and also considering the fact that accused has not led any evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused. 4. The order of the Trial Court was challenged before the Trial Court in Criminal Appeal No.1279/2024. The First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record, despite service of notice, the accused did not make any payment and also even not contested the matter and re- appreciated the material on record referring the judgments of the Apex Court in K. BHASKARAN vs. SANKARAN - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34679 CRL.RP No. 389 of 2026 VAIDHYAN BALAN reported in AIR 1999 SC 3762 and RANGAPPA vs. SRI MOHAN reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 and comes to the conclusion that the accused did not dispute issuance of Cheque in paragraph No.27 and in paragraph No.28 comes to the conclusion that accused has not rebutted the evidence of complainant and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 5. Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that it is a clear case for remanding the matter to the Trial Court, since the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not given sufficient opportunity to cross- examine P.W.1 and the First Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the material on record in the appeal. Hence, it requires interference. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that even inspite of summons were served, the accused did not choose to appear before the Court and thereafter, NBW was issued and ultimately, after prolonged period, he was secured before the Court by issuing NBW and thereafter also, opportunity was given for five times to cross- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34679 CRL.RP No. 389 of 2026 examine the witness and even on cost also, not cross-examined the witness. Hence, question of interference and once again remanding the matter does not arise. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and considering the grounds which have been urged, when the case was initiated in the year 2022, on perusal of the records of the Trial Court, it is seen that petitioner/accused was secured before the Trial Court issuing NBW and on execution of NBW itself, he was secured before the Trial Court and thereafter also, though he engaged the counsel and enlarged on bail, inspite of sufficient opportunities were given, but did not participate in the proceedings and did not cross-examine the witness and when an application was filed, it was allowed on cost of Rs.500/- and time was given and inspite of it, not cross-examined the witness and not led any defence evidence. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the revision petition and when there is no rebuttal evidence before the Court and not disputed issuance of subject matter of Cheque, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34679 CRL.RP No. 389 of 2026 Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24