- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB CRL.A No. 822 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.822 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT S/O ISHWARA BHAT AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O ISHA VASHYAM MODANKAPU POST BANTWAL MOODA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-576122. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAVEEN KUMAR A.V., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O VISHNU BHAT R/O ARALLIKATTE KALANJA VILLAGE PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA-574212. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, PUTTUR-574212 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB CRL.A No. 822 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 413 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2024 IN C.C.NO.444/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.444/2014 AS PRAYED FOR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Special Public Prosecutor-II-Vijaykumar Majage for respondent No.2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB CRL.A No. 822 of 2025 2. This appeal is filed against the acquittal order of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 415, 417, 418, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 469 of Indian Penal Code. The factual matrix of complainant in the complaint is that complainant was surprised to receive a notice dated 25.09.2009 sent by the advocate on behalf of the said accused calling upon him to pay sum of Rs.8,05,000/- alleged to be borrowed by the complainant from the accused. That the complainant was shocked, flabbergasted and dumb stuck on going through the allegations made against him in the aforesaid notice. The complainant doesn't know the accused nor the accused knows the complainant and accused is a stranger as far as the complainant is concerned. The accused was having absolutely no transaction of any kind with the complainant nor the complainant was having absolutely any transaction of any kind with the accused. The allegation made in the said notice is not only false, but false even to the knowledge of the accused. The photocopy of the legal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB CRL.A No. 822 of 2025 notice was also produced along with complaint dated 25.09.2009. That on 03.10.2009, the complainant has given a proper and fitting reply through the counsel for the accused and reply has been served on the counsel for the accused and inspite of it, proceedings was initiated and case is numbered as C.C.No.190/2010 and false complaint had been filed against the complainant herein by the accused and the act of the accused is nothing but an attempt of foul game played by the accused to make unlawful monetary gain at the cost of the complainant and to harass the complainant in the society and hence, a complaint is filed and the case was registered by the State. 3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence i.e., evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and respondents have not lead evidence, however, got marked the document Ex.D1, Ex.D.2, Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4. The Trial Court having considered the material on record particularly taking into - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB CRL.A No. 822 of 2025 note of case of the complainant and also the defence of the accused in paragraph No.20, discussed the same. The first ground is that the Cheque not belongs to the complainant and the same pertaining to his mother Saraswathi Amma and account is also belongs to the mother and also taken note of waited till disposal of the case C.C.No.190/2010 and then only pursued the remedy that too filing a complaint against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. The above said complaint had filed against the accused and also taken note of doubt arises in the mind of the Court in order to take revenge against the accused after disposal of the case, the present complaint is filed and comes to the conclusion that the offences which have been invoked against the accused is also not come within the purview and also ingredients of the offences which have been invoked particularly the oral and documentary evidence, it has been seen that Cheque belongs to Saraswathi Amma, who is the mother of the complainant and not belongs to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB CRL.A No. 822 of 2025 the complainant and dismissed the case by acquitting the accused. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, present appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that observation made by the Trial Court is not correct that complaint was filed after the disposal of earlier case C.C.No.190/2010 and counsel brought to notice of this Court that even the complaint was filed before the Bantwal Court on 01.04.2010 and no doubt for want of jurisdiction, the same was returned, but there was a delay of 2 years in filing the present complaint invoking Section 420 of IPC. The counsel also not disputes the fact that Cheque belongs to the mother of the complainant and not belongs to the complainant. 5. The counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 also submits that notice was given on 25.09.2009 and though allegedly contend that complaint was given at the first instance at Bantwal Taluk, even after issuing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB CRL.A No. 822 of 2025 notice, there was a delay in filing such complaint and apart from that when the complaint was returned and not pursued the remedy for a period of 2 years and only after coming to know about the result, as a revenge, present complaint is filed and the same is taken note of by the Trial Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, admittedly Cheque belongs to the mother of the complainant and not belongs to the complainant and apart from that though counsel appearing for the appellant would submits that complaint was filed in the month of April-2010 and not disputes the fact that the said complaint was returned and also not pursued the matter even after the return for a period of 2 years. It is also not in dispute that the present complaint arises after the disposal of the case in C.C.No.190/2010 and having taken note of all these factors into consideration, the Trial Court also while passing an order, in detail discussed the same - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB CRL.A No. 822 of 2025 the factual aspects in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 since there are some allegations against the respondent No.1 and also taken note of the material available on record, when there was an allegation of forgery and also invoked the other offences of 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 of IPC making use of the same and also the Trial Court in paragraph No.20 while considering the case of complainant, in detail discussed the same and even taken note of evidence of Bank Manager P.W.2 and Cheque belongs to Saraswathi Amma and taken note of disposal of C.C.No.190/2010 and also taken note of the circumstances under which the complaint is filed invoking the offence under Section 420 of IPC. When such being the case, when reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that it is not a case for admission and hence, no grounds to admit the appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB CRL.A No. 822 of 2025 7. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12