- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010018292024 NC: 2026:KHC:38631 CRL.RP No. 74 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.74 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HEMALATHA H.R., W/O R. REVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.202, NEAR ANU PUBLIC SCHOOL, PARIMALANAGAR, 3RD MAIN, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. LIKITHA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MAHESH, S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.96, 2ND CROSS, 6TH MAIN, JAI MARUTHI NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560096. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.R.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010018292024 NC: 2026:KHC:38631 CRL.RP No. 74 of 2024 CRL.A.NO.2589/2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY, DATED 23.09.2023 AND SET ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE XIX A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.25826/2017 DATED 16.11.2019 AND PETITIONER MAY BE ACQUITTED FORM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I ACT BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. 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 and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The Trial Court having taken note of the material available on record, particularly in paragraph No.25 observed that the accused has admitted receipt of two notices from the complainant as per Exs.P.14 and 15. She has also admitted that since she could not return the money to the complainant even after issuance of two notices by him, the complainant had presented the cheques to the bank for encashment. It is also admitted that those cheques have been returned dishonoured for the reason “funds insufficient” which was informed by the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010018292024 NC: 2026:KHC:38631 CRL.RP No. 74 of 2024 complainant to her. It is her contention that since her brother Dileep had undertaken to repay the money to the complainant, she could not pay the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant. This admission goes to show that she was liable to pay the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant and admitted her liability to repay the same. The Trial Court in paragraph No.26 considered the documents of Exs.P.12 and 13 and in paragraph No.27 taken note of that the complainant had received the original sale deed of the house of the accused along with two cheques when he lent money for the first time. The Trial Court taken note that the version of the complainant is supported by Exs.P.12 and 13. The Trial Court in paragraph No.29 in detail discussed the same and with regard to the misusing of the cheque is concerned, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1. No document is placed before the Court except examining the accused as D.W.1 and there is no any rebuttal evidence. 3. The First Appellate Court also having considered the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court, comes to the conclusion that the transaction, liability and also the issuance of cheque is - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010018292024 NC: 2026:KHC:38631 CRL.RP No. 74 of 2024 admitted and notice was also served and no reply was given and the same is discussed in paragraph No.21. The First Appellate Court even extracted the admission of D.W.1 and she has clearly stated that after issuing of two notices also, she has not repaid the amount. The First Appellate Court re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence and also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RANGAPPA v. MOHAN reported in 2010 AIR SC 296. There is no any rebuttal evidence before the Court and nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination and not substantiated the defence and hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition. 4. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25