Karnataka High Court
Srihari N vs R Hareesh on 13 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9022
CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.464 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRIHARI N.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.38, SRI SRINIVASA,
PRASHANTHI NILAYAM,
INDUSTRIAL LINE,
SIDDARTH SCHOOL ROAD,
KAMAKASHIPALYA EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISCHAY S.P. AMICUS CURIAE)
AND:
1. R. HAREESH
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S S/O M.K. RAJASHEKAR
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT NO. G-16/48
ABBAYANNA STREET,
DODDAMAVALLI,
BENGALURU - 560004.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESHA, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9022
CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017
HC-KAR
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
PASSED BY THE XII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN
C.C.NO.14802/2014 DATED 23.11.2015 AND ALSO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.1500/2015
DATED 10.02.2017.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused is before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.14802/2014 dated 23.11.2015 passed by the Court of XII A.C.M.M., Bangalore and the Judgment and Order passed in Crl.A.No.1500/2015 dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Court of LXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017 HC-KAR
2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in C.C.No.14802/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act').
4. It is the case of the respondent - complainant that petitioner who was his friend had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for personal needs and towards repayment of said amount, the cheques in question bearing No.029541 & 029547 dated 17.07.2013 and 29.07.2013 respectively, drawn on ICICI Bank, Vijaynagar Branch, Bangalore - 560 040, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each in favour of the respondent were issued by the petitioner. The said cheques, on presentation for realisation were dishonoured by the drawee bank. Thereafter, statutory legal notice was got issued on behalf of the complainant to the petitioner and since, the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheques in -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017 HC-KAR question in spite of service of legal notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against him for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act. In the said proceedings, petitioner who had entered appearance before the Trial Court had claimed to be tried. The respondent - complainant in order to substantiate his case had examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked nine documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the defence, petitioner had examined himself as D.W.1. However, no documents were got marked on his behalf. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.10,05,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that in order to prove his case, respondent - complainant had examined himself as P.W.1 and had produced nine documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9. Exs.P1 and P2 are the cheques in question and Ex.P1(a) and P2(a) are the signature of the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017 HC-KAR petitioner on the said cheques. Ex.P5 is the loan document executed between the petitioner and the respondent, and signatures of the petitioner on the loan document are marked as Ex.P5(a) to P5(d). Ex.P6 is the On Demand Promissory Note executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent and signature of the petitioner on Ex.P6 are marked as Exs.P6(a) and P6(b). Though legal notice Ex.P7 was served on the petitioner, undisputedly he had not replied to the same. The signatures of the petitioner found in the cheques in question namely Exs.P1 and P2 are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Ex.P1 and P2 are drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained by him in ICICI Bank, Vijaynagar Branch, Bangalore. Therefore, presumption arises against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I. Act. Unless, the petitioner rebuts the said presumption by putting forward a probable defence, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act.
6. In the present case, petitioner has set up a defence that the cheques in question were misused by his partner and were handed over to the respondent who has initiated the present -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017 HC-KAR proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act. According to the petitioner, he had not borrowed any amount from the respondent and the cheques which were misused by his partner Manjunath have been used by the complainant to initiate proceedings against him for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act. In the case on hand, in addition to the cheques in question, the respondent - complainant has also produced loan agreement at Ex.P5 executed by the petitioner in his favour. Signatures of the petitioner found in the loan agreement are marked as Exs.P5(a) to P5(d). Ex.P6 is the On Demand Promissory Note executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. Signatures of the petitioner on Ex.P6 are marked as Exs.P6(a) and P6(b). The aforesaid signatures of the petitioner found in Ex.P5 loan agreement and Ex.P6 On Demand Promissory Note have not been disputed by him. Under the circumstances, the presumption that arose against the petitioner as aforesaid stands unrebutted and therefore, the Courts below are fully justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings of the Courts below -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9022 CRL.RP No. 464 of 2017 HC-KAR which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Even the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is just and proportionate. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
8. The service of Amicus Curiae is placed on record and his fees is fixed at Rs.15,000/-.
SD/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56