- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 245 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: RAMANUJAM V S/O LT SRI G VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS NO 189, 3RD CROSS 1ST MAIN, NEW BAYYAPPANAHALLI OFF S V ROAD BANGALORE 560038 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. PURUSHOTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANOHAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: KESHAVAMURTHY N G S/O LT SRI GANESH RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS NO 1859, 2ND FLOOR 2ND MAIN 6TH C CROSS NEW THIPPSANDRA Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 BANGALORE 560075 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUPREETH B. P, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAKUMAR P., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2022 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.25170/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL COURT, BENGALURU BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2021 PASSED IN C.C.NO.57981/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIII ACMM, MAYO HALL COURT, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. G. Purushotham, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Manohar N for the petitioner and Mr. Supreeth B. P, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Shivakumar P. for the respondent. 2. The accused, who has suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.57981/2018 on the file of the XXXIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.25170/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short, 'N.I. Act'] is the revision petitioner. 3. The facts in the nutshell which are at most necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C came to be filed alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act by contending that accused being the owner of the immovable property bearing No.85-9-16 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 comprising of 3 floors situated at Byappanahalli offered to lease 2 bedroom house situated in the ground floor to the complainant to a lease amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. As such, an agreement was entered into on 15.03.2017 and as per the agreement, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- through three cheques bearing Nos. 010779, 616780 and 616781, which was encased by the accused and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by cash and thus the entire lease amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid. 3.2 It is further contented by the complainant that during the subsistence of the lease, in the month of November 2017, the complainant learnt that accused has availed loan from Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. by mortgaging the property and recovery proceedings was initiated by the said finance company and constructive possession of the said property was already taken. Suppressing the same, the accused has leased the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 property in favour of the complainant and therefore he demanded to return the property. 3.3 Towards the repayment, three cheques were issued by the accused, which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement "funds insufficient" and therefore legal notice was issued. 3.4 An untenable reply came to be issued by the accused and therefore complainant had sought for action. Thereafter, trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, completed necessary formalities and summoned the accused and recorded the plea, accused was pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial was held. 4. Complainant got examined himself as PW1 and to prove his case, he placed on record 12 documents, which were exhibited and marked as Exhibit - P1 to Exhibit - P12 comprising of dishonored cheques, bank endorsements, office copy of the legal notice, postal acknowledgment, reply notice, house lease agreement and mutual agreement. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 5. As against the material evidence placed on record, accused got examined himself as DW1 and placed on record 6 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibit - D1 to Exhibit - D6 comprising of bank statement, certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, mail correspondence and copy of the letter. 6. Learned trial Magistrate after considering the rival contentions of the parties, on cumulative consideration of the material on record, noted that the complainant enjoyed the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act as he discharged the initial burden by placing the oral and documentary evidence on record, including the lease and mutual agreement. 7. Learned trial Magistrate also noted that defence evidence in the form of oral testimony of DW1 and Exhibit - D1 to Exhibit - D6 were not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption, as admittedly there was a proceedings initiated against the property by the Finance Company under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 Crl.Misc.No.50060/2013 on the file of the X Additional CMM, Bengaluru and therefore, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 8. Thereafter, accused filed an appeal before the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.25170/2024. 9. Learned Judge in the appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the matter on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused by considered judgment dated 28.10.2022. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 11. Mr. G. Purushotham, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. N. Manohar would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. He would further contend that a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- admitted by the complainant in his cross examination has been ignored by the learned trial Judge and there was no legally recoverable debt under Exhibit - P1 to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 Exhibit - P3 and those cheques have been forcibly extracted by the complainant and his family members under threat. 12. Therefore, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is bad in law and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supports the impugned judgment. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal, it is crystal clear that complainant was occupying as a lessee in the ground floor of the premises belonging to the accused which is situated in Byappanahalli. Lease amount was in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and the same has been paid by the complainant through three cheques and cash. 15. Further, the proceedings initiated by the Finance Company is admitted by the accused in his cross examination and constructive possession has been taken by the said Finance Company. As such, continuation of the lease was impermissible and therefore, there is a mutual agreement. DW1 in his cross - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 examination admits Exhibit - P11 and Exhibit - P12. Therefore, the Lease Agreement and Mutual Agreement stand to establish. He also admits in his cross-examination that he has English knowledge. He also admits that in Exhibit - P12, he has stated that complainant has been thrown out from the premises and he has issued the cheques towards the repayment. 16. These aspects of the matter would make it clear and belie the defence which was illusory in nature that the cheques were extracted by force and therefore, there was no legally recoverable debt. These aspects of the matter has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial Magistrate while holding that the rebuttal evidence was not sufficient to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and rightly convicted the accused, which has been properly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the first appellate Court. 17. Thus, with the limited powers under revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find that any grounds whatsoever, much less good grounds, interfere with the vagaries and judgments of both the Courts. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19507 CRL.RP No. 245 of 2023 18. Accordingly, following order: ORDER The revision petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RB