Karnataka High Court
Sri D P Purushotham vs Sri Naveen Prakash on 1 July, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23299
CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 176 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI D P PURUSHOTHAM
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O SRI PUTTEGOWDA,
RESIDENT OF NO.71,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD
VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 085
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI SRI NAVEEN PRAKASH
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O SRI PRAKASH,
RESIDENT OF NO.3181,
VISHVESHWARAIAH CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LAYOUT, 4TH PHASE,
GIRINAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 085
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SURESHA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 CR.P.C TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2021 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.194/2021
ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY SET
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23299
CRL.RP No. 176 of 2022
HC-KAR
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2020 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.4453/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XXIV
ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the
judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed in Crl.A.No.194/2021
by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru wherein conviction of the petitioner by
judgment dated 01.02.2020 passed in C.C.No.4453/2019-
by the XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate (SCCH-26), Bengaluru for offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I Act for brevity) has
been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent.
NC: 2025:KHC:23299
HC-KAR
3. The case of the respondent -complainant before
the trial Court was that complainant's father and the
petitioner -accused were neighbours. The petitioner -
accused has borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees Ten Lakhs
only) from the complainant as hand loan during the first
week of May- 2016 for development of his office. The
complainant has approached for repayment of hand loan.
At that time, the petitioner -accused has issued a post
dated cheque bearing No.827478 dated 08.05.2019 for a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(rupees Ten Lakhs only) drawn in
the Corporation Bank, M.G.Road branch, Bengaluru. The
complainant presented the said cheque and it came to be
dishonoured for a reason "funds insufficient" on
09.05.2019. The complainant got issued legal notice
dated 26.06.2019 calling upon the petitioner -accused to
make payment of cheque amount within a period of 15
days. The said notice has been served on the petitioner -
accused. Inspite of service of notice, the petitioner -
accused has not paid the cheque amount. Therefore, the
NC: 2025:KHC:23299
HC-KAR
respondent -complainant has initiated proceedings against
the petitioner -complainant for offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I Act.
4. The complainant has been examined himself as
P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P6. The
statement of the accused has been recorded under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. At this stage, the petitioner -accused and
respondent -complainant have filed joint memo and
prayed to pass the judgment on the basis of terms and
conditions enumerated in the joint memo. Considering the
same, the trial Court has passed the judgment convicting
the petitioner -accused for offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced him to pay fine
of Rs.5,10,000/- (rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand only) in
three installment as stated in the joint memo and in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 06
months. The said judgment of conviction has been
challenged before the Sessions Court in
Crl.A.No.194/2021. The said appeal came to be dismissed
NC: 2025:KHC:23299
HC-KAR
on merits affirming the judgment of conviction passed by
the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner -accused
would contend that the petitioner under impression that
the matter is settled for Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees One Lakh
Fifty Thousand only) affixed his signature on the joint
memo and later came to know that they agreed to pay
amount of Rs.5,10,000/-(rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand
only).
6. Learned counsel for the respondent would
contend that there were discussions and after that, the
joint memo has been prepared and filed. On going through
averments of the joint memo, both parties affixed their
signature and the petitioner -accused has agreed to pay
amount of Rs.5,10,000/-(rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand
only) in three installments and based on that the
judgment has been passed.
NC: 2025:KHC:23299
HC-KAR
7. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has
perused impugned judgments and trial Court records.
8. The petitioner -accused and respondent -
complainant during pendency of the Criminal Case have
entered into settlement and the petitioner -accused has
agreed to pay amount of Rs.5,10,000/-(rupees Five Lakhs
Ten Thousand only) in installments. The said joint memo
has been signed by the petitioner and respondent and filed
before the trial Court. Based on the terms and conditions
enumerated in the said joint memo, the trial Court has
convicted the petitioner -accused for offence punishable
under Section 138 of the N.I Act and sentenced him to pay
fine of Rs.5,10,000/-(rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand
only) in three installments. The very said filing of the joint
memo indicate that the petitioner -accused has admitted
issuance of cheque. As issuance of cheque is admitted,
the presumption has to be drawn under Section 139 of the
N.I Act that the cheque is issued for discharge of debt. The
said presumption is rebuttable presumption. The petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC:23299
HC-KAR
-accused has not rebutted the said presumption.
Considering the said aspect and terms and conditions of
joint memo, the learned Magistrate has convicted the
petitioner -accused for offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I Act.
9. The joint memo has been filed on 31.01.2020
before the trial Court. On that day the petitioner -accused
was represented by his counsel. The petitioner and his
counsel both affixed their signature on the joint memo and
also on the order sheet. On the said date the petitioner -
accused has made payment of Rs.10,000/- and same has
been received by the respondent -complainant and also
made endorsement to that effect in the order sheet of the
trial Court. When the petitioner -accused is represented
by his counsel, now he cannot say that he under
misconception has affixed his signature on the joint
memo. Even the Appellate Court considering the
contention raised by the petitioner -accused has dismissed
the appeal. There are no grounds made out to allow this
NC: 2025:KHC:23299
HC-KAR
Criminal Revision Petition and acquit the petitioner -
accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I Act.
10. In the result, this Criminal Revision
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
