- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010413662026 NC: 2026:KHC:36230 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.998 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. NANJEGOWDA, S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.A-9, 1ST FLOOR, SCC SAPPIRE APARTMENTS, ATTURU-ANANTHAPURA MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKRAM PASHA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. REDDI BAPI RAJU, S/O LATE REDDI SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.562, ‘A’ SECTOR, 7TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560067. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.880/2021 DATED 02.05.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.28709/2018 DATED 27.10.2021 BY THE Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010413662026 NC: 2026:KHC:36230 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2026 HONBLE XVIII A.C.J.M AT BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I 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. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court while invoking Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is that the accused is known to the complainant through his friend Sudharshan. The complainant and said Sudharshan were working together at Railway Wheel Factory at Yelahanka. The said Sudharshan has introduced the accused to the complainant stating that the accused is good friend of him and wanted the complainant to financially help the accused for the purpose of celebrating his daughter's marriage. The complainant agreed to advance the amount and paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheques both dated 13.05.2015 and after two days the accused has requested the complainant to advance another - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010413662026 NC: 2026:KHC:36230 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2026 Rs.1,00,000/- as Rs.5,00,000/- was not sufficient to celebrate his daughter’s marriage. Considering his request, the complainant has paid Rs.1,00,000/- by cash on 15.05.2015 and totally the accused has received Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant as a hand loan for celebrating the marriage of his daughter and promised that he will repay the same within 2 to 3 months with interest at the rate of 1.5%. But despite the demand, he did not repay the amount and ultimately, issued the subject matter of cheque. On 03.03.2017 he paid the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- through RTGS and on 26.04.2018 he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque to the complainant. The complainant has adjusted the said amount towards the interest from 15.05.2015 to 15.04.2018. After deducting the said amount, the accused was in due for an amount of Rs.6,46,000/- as on 31.07.2018, including principal amount and interest. Towards repayment of the said amount on 03.08.2018, the accused voluntarily issued post-dated cheque for Rs.6,46,000/- in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned unpaid for the reason funds insufficient in the account maintained by the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010413662026 NC: 2026:KHC:36230 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2026 accused. Hence, immediately the complainant got issued notice and the accused failed to give reply and also did not comply with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 5 i.e., original cheque, bank memos, legal notice, postal receipt and postal track consignment details. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5 i.e., police acknowledgment, police issued endorsement, statement, copy of the complaint and wedding card. It is the main contention of the accused that in the year of transaction, there was no any marriage of the daughter of the accused. The marriage was performed in the year 2012 itself. A specific defence was taken that only an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was received and the same was repaid. But in order to prove the factum that he has repaid the amount, nothing is placed on record. The complainant himself has admitted repayment of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was adjusted towards the interest. As on the date of filing of the complaint, the accused - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010413662026 NC: 2026:KHC:36230 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2026 was in due for an amount of Rs.6,46,000/-. The issuance of cheque is not disputed and signature is also not disputed. Only defence was taken that it was repaid and the same is not substantiated and hence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused. 4. An appeal is also filed against the conviction and sentence and the Appellate Court also re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence, particularly the answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and D.W.1. The Appellate Court also taken note of that the defence which was taken was not substantiated and particularly on the receipt of notice Ex.P.3, he has not given any reply and hence, the Appellate Court also confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court is that the document Ex.D.5 produced before the Court discloses that the marriage of the petitioner's daughter was solemnized on 30.11.2012. Hence, advancing the loan amount for the marriage of daughter of the petitioner does not arise. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that the payment on 15.08.2016, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010413662026 NC: 2026:KHC:36230 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2026 Rs.50,000/- by way of cash and Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque and further on 30.03.2017 is denied by the respondent regarding the receipt of the amount from the petitioner and inspite of it, the Trial Court committed an error. The very approach of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is erroneous and hence, it requires interference of this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also considering the material on record, the issuance of Ex.P.1 cheque by the accused is not in dispute. The notice was issued and the same was served. In respect of service of notice, Ex.P.5 postal track consignment details are also placed on record for proving of service of notice. Though defence was taken that amount was repaid, the same is not substantiated by any documentary proof. D.W.1 categorically admitted for having availed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and for having repaid the amount, nothing is placed on record except the amount which was admitted by the complainant himself that payment was made to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was adjusted towards the interest and agreed rate of interest is also 1.5%. The payments are - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010413662026 NC: 2026:KHC:36230 CRL.RP No. 998 of 2026 made on 30.03.2017 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.04.2018 to the complainant and except these payments, no other payments are made. The case of the complainant is very clear for having advanced the amount on interest only, received the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was adjusted towards the interest part is concerned. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and even enhanced amount is also only Rs.10,000/- as against the cheque amount of Rs.6,46,000/-. Hence, it does not require any interference and no ground is made out to admit the petition. Hence the revision of petition is dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of the revision petition, pending I.As, if any, do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49