Smt. Lalitha K vs M/S Omkar Investments And Finance
2022 Latest Caselaw 5475 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1213/2021

BETWEEN:

SMT. LALITHA K,
W/O K.L.N. MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.248, 6TH MAIN,
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560011.                             ...PETITIONER

             (BY SRI GURUSWAMY B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. OMKAR INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE,
NO.9, ROOPA COMPLEX,
SHIVA GANGA MUTT ROAD,
3RD MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET,
BANGALORE-560018.
REP BY ITS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI V. RADHAKRISHNAN.                      ...RESPONDENT

             (BY SRI N. MAHENDRANATH, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.09.2021 PASSED BY THE LXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.632/2018 AND JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2018 PASSED
BY THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XXII
ADDL.C.M.M.,   BENGLAURU     (SCCH-26),   BENGALURU     IN
C.C.NO.28162/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT BY THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM CONVICTED OFFENCES AND
                                    2



TO REMAND BACK THE MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH
TRIAL.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the

respondent.

      2.    The     factual    matrix     of   the     case     of   the

respondent/complainant        is   that    this      petitioner/accused

approached the complainant in the month of May 2015 and

requested for loan of Rs.25,00,000/- with an assurance to repay

the same in ten equal monthly installments of Rs.2,50,000/-

each. Accordingly, the complainant advanced the loan amount

by way of cheque. The accused has executed on demand

promissory note coupled with consideration receipt and other

documents. The accused has paid installments from July 2015

to February 2016 and thereafter failed to pay the monthly

installments. On repeated demand, the accused issued two

cheques, which were presented and the same were returned

with an endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer". Hence,

notice was issued and she did not comply with the notice and

hence complaint was filed and the Trial Court took the

cognizance. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and

got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8. When P.W.1 was

examined, the learned counsel for the accused took time on

three occasions and in the fourth occasion, made the submission

before the Trial Court that he is going to settle the matter and

on that ground, the Trial Court granted time and thereafter once

again time was sought and it was rejected by the Trial Court.

Thereafter, no application was filed even for recalling of the

witness P.W.1 and when the matter was posted for defence

evidence, not appeared before the Trial Court.

3. This Court vide order dated 19.01.2022 directed the

learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the medical

documents to show that the petitioner could not appear before

the Trial Court on account of the accident that she had met. The

learned counsel has filed the medical certificate, which shows

that she was admitted to hospital on 30.11.2017 and undergone

treatment of close reduction on the very same day and she was

discharged on 01.12.2017. The lower Court records reveals that

when the accused was not appearing before the Court, NBW was

issued and thereafter NBW was recalled when this petitioner

appeared before the Trial Court on 26.12.2017 and thereafter

P.W.1 was examined and the learned counsel for the accused

took time for cross-examination on several occasions and even

not cross-examined the witness inspite of opportunity was given.

The learned counsel also made the submission regarding

settlement and settlement was also not made and once again

sought time and the prayer was rejected on 26.02.2018 and the

matter was posted for defence evidence and defence evidence

also not adduced. Hence, the judgment was passed.

4. The documents which have been produced before

the Court does not come to the aid of the petitioner since the

petitioner met with an accident on 30.11.2017 and subsequently

P.W.1 is examined before the Trial Court and got marked the

documents. Thereafter, on four occasions time was taken by the

learned counsel for the petitioner and not availed the time given

by the Trial Court and now the petitioner cannot contend that no

opportunity is given to the petitioner. It is also important to

note that an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid in favour of the

petitioner by way of cheque and the petitioner did not repay the

amount and also not contested the matter. When such being

the factual aspects of the case, the question of exercising the

revisional jurisdiction does not arise since the petitioner has not

set out any defence by cross-examining P.W.1. Hence, I do not

find any grounds to admit the revision petition.

5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD