Karnataka High Court
Mrs.Ramadevi vs Mr.Suraj on 18 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9973
CRL.RP No. 60 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.60 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MRS. RAMADEVI
W/O KISSAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.7/1, BEHIND KPT
VYASANAGAR, KADRI
MANGALURU - 572 122
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. SURAJ
S/O NAGARAJ N
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.1-80/1
Digitally
signed by NULLIPADY NEST
NANDINI M S
DEVINAGARA
Location:
HIGH COURT PACHANADY
OF BONDEL POST
KARNATAKA
MANGALURU - 572 122
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HANJER RAGHAVENDRA BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A
NO.106/2021, DATED 23.11.2021 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION DATED 06.08.2021 IN C.C.NO.4149/2019
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9973
CRL.RP No. 60 of 2022
HC-KAR
PASSED BY THE IV J.M.F.C MANGALURU AND TO DIRECT THE
ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order passed in C.C.No.4149 of 2019 dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Court of JMFC-IV Court, Mangaluru, D.K, and the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 dated 23.11.2021 by the Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act') in C.C.No.4149 of 2019 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate, Mangaluru. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner and her husband had borrowed a hand loan of -3- NC: 2026:KHC:9973 CRL.RP No. 60 of 2022 HC-KAR ₹.2,50,000/- and towards repayment of the said amount, the petitioner had issued two post dated cheques for total sum of Rs.2,60,000/-. The cheque bearing No.357740 dated 20.03.2018 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Bejai, Mangaluru in favour of the respondent was dishonoured when presented for realisation and therefore, a statutory notice was got issued on behalf of the respondent, which was allegedly served on the petitioner herein. The petitioner had not repaid the amount covered under the cheque in question in spite of service of notice. Therefore, proceedings was initiated by the respondent against him before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in C.C.No.4149 of 2019 for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Trial Court had convicted the petitioner in the said proceeding and sentenced her to pay fine of ₹.2,54,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Assailing the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.4149 of 2019 dated 06.08.2021, the petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 before the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina kannada, Mangaluru which was -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9973 CRL.RP No. 60 of 2022 HC-KAR dismissed by judgment and order dated 23.11.2021. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court has not been heard nor disposed of on merits by the First Appellate Court. He submits that, since the petitioner had failed to comply the interim order passed in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021, wherein she was directed to deposit 20% of the fine amount, the Appellate Court has held that the appeal is not maintainable and accordingly has dismissed the same. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the Appellate Court was fully justified in dismissing the appeal since the petitioner admittedly had not complied the interim order passed by the Appellate Court. He submits that, the Appellate Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL.S.S V VIRENDER -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9973 CRL.RP No. 60 of 2022 HC-KAR GANDHI - 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 18 and accordingly has prays to dismiss the this revision petition.
6. Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner herein before the First Appellate Court under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The said appeal is a statutory appeal, which was required to be considered on merits by the Appellate Court. However, the Appellate Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURINDER SINGH DESWAL (supra) has held that, since the petitioner had failed to comply the interim order passed in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021, the appeal could not be maintained. The Appellate Court has completely misread and misunderstood the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURINDER SINGH DESWAL (supra). In the said case it was held that, when suspension of sentence by the Trial Court is granted on a condition, non compliance of the condition has adverse effect on continuation of suspension of sentence and the Court which has suspended the sentence on a condition, after noticing non-compliance of the condition can -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9973 CRL.RP No. 60 of 2022 HC-KAR very well hold that the suspension of sentence stands vacated due to non-compliance.
7. The Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and has erred in dismissing the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. Therefore, on this short ground, this Criminal Revision Petition has to succeed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 dated 23.11.2021 has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the Appellate Court with a direction to consider Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 on its merits in accordance with law within a time frame since the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner herein by the respondent in year 2019.
8. Accordingly the following :-
ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.
ii. The judgment and order dated 23.11.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 by the Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9973 CRL.RP No. 60 of 2022 HC-KAR D.K, Mangaluru is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Court with a direction to consider Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iii. The petitioner has complied the interim order passed by this Court and 50% of the fine imposed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.4149/2019 has been already deposited. The said deposit shall be subject to result of Criminal Appeal No.106/2021.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36