[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinay Kumar C vs Sri Arun Kumar M N on 9 December, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51934
CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1595 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI VINAY KUMAR C
S/O CHANDRA SHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MARIGOWDA LAYOUT,
BHABURAYANA KOPPALU VILLAGE,
K. SHETTIHALLI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATANA, MANDYA DISTRICT-574138.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI ARUN KUMAR M N
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT M. SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI,
GEETHAKUMARI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
PARLATTAYA S
Location: High MANDYA DISTRICT-571 807.
Court of Karnataka ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.B. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.05.2023 IN
C.C.NO.727/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRIRANGAPATNA FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 31.10.2023 PASSED IN CRL.APL. NO.5029 OF 2023, ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA).
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51934
CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at
Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.no.5029/2023 confirming judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2023 passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Srirangapatna, in
C.C.no.727/2020, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri K. Shridhara, learned counsel for petitioner
(accused) submitted that instant proceedings were initiated on
a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under
Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for
short) alleging that accused was well known to him and on
18.12.2019 had borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- as hand loan for his
legal necessities, assuring to repay it within period of three
months and after lapse of said period and on demand, same
day accused issued post dated cheque bearing no.392034
dated 18.03.2020 drawn on ICICI Bank, V.V. Mohalla, Mysuru
Branch, Mysuru for Rs.3,50,000/- towards discharge of loan
NC: 2025:KHC:51934
HC-KAR
amount, which when presented for collection on 19.03.2020,
returned dishonoured with endorsement 'Account Closed' on
20.03.2020 and thereafter when complainant intimated same
to accused, he had instructed for re-presentation. But, even on
re-presentation on 16.05.2020, cheque was dishonoured and
returned endorsement with same reason on 18.05.2020 and
thereafter when demand notice dated 05.06.2020 got issued by
complainant returned with endorsement 'Party not available' on
24.06.2020 and accused had failed to repay amount within
time stipulated, thereby committed offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for
short).
3. On appearance, accused denied charges and sought
trial. Whereupon, complainant deposed as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P7. On explanation of incriminating material,
accused denied same as false which was recorded as his
statement under Section 313 of CrPC.
4. It was submitted, accused had taken substantial
contention that when dishonour of cheque was due to 'account
closed' representation of cheque would not be justified and
NC: 2025:KHC:51934
HC-KAR
same would not attract Section 138 of NI Act. But, trial Court
proceeded to convict accused, contrary to ratio laid down by
this Court in case of Sri H. Nanjundappa Since deceased by
his Legal Representative his daughter and Anr. v. H.
Hanumantharayappa, reported in ILR 2007 KAR 2706,
wherein it is held when dishonour of cheque is on ground of
account being closed, question of successive presentation of
cheque would make no sense and complainant ought to have
filed complaint based on first dishonour and failure would result
in acquittal. It was further submitted that even appeal filed
against said judgment was dismissed without proper
consideration. Therefore, sought for allowing revision petition.
5. On other hand, Sri G.B. Manjunatha, learned
counsel for complainant opposed revision petition. It was
submitted, question whether dishonour of cheque on ground of
account being closed would fall within Section 138 of NI Act
was answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NEPC
Micon Ltd. and Ors. v. Magma Leasing Ltd., reported in
1999 Crl.L.J 2883 and therefore, there was no merit in
revision petition and sought for dismissal..
NC: 2025:KHC:51934
HC-KAR
6. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgments and record.
7. From above, it is seen that this revision petition is
by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting accused
for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, alleging
perversity of finding on sole ground that complaint was filed
based on cause of action in pursuance of successive
re-presentation of cheque in question, when reason for
dishonour was account closed on both instances. In view of
contention, only question that would require to be answered is
whether on account of successive re-presentation of cheque,
when cheque was dishonoured on ground of account being
closed, conviction of accused would be contrary to law.
8. Perusal of judgment in NEPC Micon Ltds' case
(supra), would indicate that Hon'ble Supreme Court therein was
considering whether dishonour of cheque on ground of account
being closed would give rise to cause of action for initiation of
action under Section 138 of NI Act. Same was answered in
affirmative.
NC: 2025:KHC:51934
HC-KAR
9. It is seen that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan and Anr., reported in 2013
(1) SCC 177, has held there would be no bar against
successive re-presentation within period of validity of cheque.
Combined reading of ratio laid down would render finding of
trial court and Appellate Court in instant case would be in
accordance with law. No ground of perversity is made out,
revision petition is without merit and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
