Karnataka High Court
Nikhil Zahid Infant vs Sri Gurukumar G Choukimath on 12 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45982
CRL.RP No. 568 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 568 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
NIKHIL ZAHID INFANT
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O A.R. INFANT
R/A NO.59, 5TH 'A' CROSS,
21ST MAIN, MCHS COLONY,
B T M SECOND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI VENKATRAMANA M K., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
SRI GURUKUMAR G. CHOUKIMATH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O GURULINGAIAH,
NAVAMI SHANKAR, 5TH CROSS,
3RD MAIN, OPP. BSNL
GRIHALAXMI LAYOUT, KAMALA NAGAR,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
Digitally signed ...RESPONDENT
by ANUSHA V (BY SRI AKRAM PASHA K., ADVOCATE)
Location: High THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 READ WITH 401 CR.PC BY THE
Court of ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
Karnataka COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1. MODIFY THE JUDGMENT/
CONVICTION ORDER DATED 28.05.2020 PASSED IN C.C.
NO.6130/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, BY ENHANCING THE
FINE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF DOUBLE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION.2. TO SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL. NO.
890/2021 BY THE FILE OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45982
CRL.RP No. 568 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed by LX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61),
in Crl.A.no.890/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 28.05.2020 passed by XIII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.no.6130/2017,
this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Venkatramana M.K., learned counsel petitioner
submitted that revision petition was by complainant being
aggrieved against order passed by Trial Court insofar as
sentence. It was submitted, while convicting respondent -
accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short) and directing him
to pay fine amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, Trial Court failed to take
note of fact that cheque in question was for Rs.15,00,000/-
issued on 31.08.2016 and order of convicting was passed in
year 2020 i.e. four years thereafter.
3. It was submitted, instead of exercising jurisdiction
to fine amount more than cheque amount, Trial Court without
NC: 2025:KHC:45982
HC-KAR
proper reasons imposed fine amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and out
of said amount Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be adjusted to State.
In effect, ordering accused to pay less than cheque amount to
complainant. It was submitted when said order was appealed,
Appellate Court dismissed appeal as not maintainable, leading
to this petition.
4. To a Court query, whether accused had also filed
appeal against order of conviction, learned counsel submits that
appeal was filed, order of Trial Court was confirmed and said
order was also confirmed by this Court in Crl.R.P.no.501/2022
disposed of on 17.02.2025.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused Order dated
17.02.2025 passed in Crl.R.P.no.501/2022 along with
impugned judgment.
6. Insofar as order passed by Appellate Court
dismissing appeal is not maintainable, learned counsel for
petitioner aggrieved that appeal by complainant for
enhancement of fine would not be maintainable. Thus, there
can be no exception to reasons stated. However, attention of
this Court was drawn to order dated 22.10.2021 passed in
NC: 2025:KHC:45982
HC-KAR
Crl.R.P.no.574/2020, whereunder petitioner was directed to
approach Sessions Court.
7. Perusal of said order reveals that, this Court had
observed for enhancement of fine, complainant would require
to file revision before District Court. Instead of filing revision
before District Court, petitioner has filed appeal which has been
rightly dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore no error as
would warrant interference is made out.
8. Hence, revision petition is dismissed, reserving
liberty to avail revision remedy, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
