Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53253 (KAR)

MOHAMMADSHABBIR BALAMSAB SHAIKH v. JAYASHANKAR KALKUNDRIKAR MULTI PURPOSE SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT

CRL.RP/100310/2024 · 2026-02-02

V Srishananda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1443 CRL.RP No. 100310 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100310 OF 2024 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MOHAMMADSHABBIR BALAMSAB SHAIKH AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 24 ASHOK NAGAR, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: JAYASHANKAR KALKUNDRIKAR MULTI PURPOSE SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, UCHAGAON BRANCH BELAGAVI REP/BY ITS RECOVERY MANAGER VINAYAK GOPAL MOHITE PATIL AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. PATIL GALLI, YALLUR, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR JOSHI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.05.2023 PASSED IN CC NO.1178/2019 BY THE COURT OF VII-JMFC, BELAGAVI AND CONFIRMED BY THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT IN CRL.A NO.10/2024 DATED 13.03.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XI ADDL. SESSION JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 138 OF THE N.I. ACT. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.03 15:09:50 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1443 CRL.RP No. 100310 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has filed a memo, which reads as under: MEMO “It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that petitioner is ready to deposit remaining cheque amount within five months in two installments. In terms of the same present petition may be disposed of, in the interest of justice.” 2. Placing the memo on record, the revision petition stands disposed of. 3. It is made clear that if the amount as agreed in the memo is not paid, the impugned order can be executed by the respondent in accordance with law. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/- CT:CMU LIST NO.: 4 SL NO.: 16