Karnataka High Court
Sri Lokesh B vs Chikkamagaluru Nagara Gruha Nirmana ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46382
CRL.RP No. 1574 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1574 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESH B.,
S/O BETTACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO 5TH CROSS,
SHANKARAPURA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 134.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI K R LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
CHIKKAMAGALURU NAGARA GRUHA NIRMANA
SAHAKARA SANGHA LIMITED
VIJAYAPURA MAIN ROAD
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed [BY SRI SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE (PH)]
by ANUSHA V
Location: High THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
Court of ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
Karnataka HONORABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE IMPOSED
BY TH PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.214/2022 JUDGMENT DATED 22-09-
2023 AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.2125/2019 DATED 06-12-
2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 2ND ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46382
CRL.RP No. 1574 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 22.09.2023 passed by Prl.
Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.214/2022
confirming judgment dated 06.12.2021 passed by II Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Chikkamagaluru, in
C.C.no.2125/2019, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri KR Lingaraju, learned counsel for petitioner
(accused) submitted that revision petition was against
concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner for offence
punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, ('NI Act', for short).
3. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) had
filed private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that towards
discharge of loan borrowed from complainant, accused had
issued cheque no.922384 dated 18.06.2018 for Rs.76,038/-,
which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with
endorsement "Funds Insufficient". And as demand notice dated
NC: 2025:KHC:46382
HC-KAR
25.07.2018 got issued by complainant returned as unclaimed
and there was failure of accused to repay cheque amount
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act was committed.
4. On appearance as accused pleaded not guilty,
matter was set for trial, wherein Secretary of complainant
Society was examined as PW.1 and Exhibits P1 to P12, got
marked.
5. Thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313
of CrPC by appraising him of incriminating material, which was
denied. Accused did not choose to lead evidence. On
consideration of material on record, trial Court convicted
accused and directed him to pay fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Appeal filed by him came to be dismissed, leading to this
revision.
6. It was submitted impugned judgments suffered
from perversity and called for interference. It was firstly
submitted, accused had earlier borrowed loan from Society and
repaid same. Thereafter, he had accompanied one Pruthviraj as
surety for loan borrowed by him from Society and had given
NC: 2025:KHC:46382
HC-KAR
cheque in question as security. However, society has misused
same, created records about lending of joint loan, got cheque
dishonoured and filed false case.
7. It was further submitted, there was failure to serve
demand notice prior to filing of complaint and lack of effort for
recovery of loan amount from borrower also indicated misuse of
cheque. On above grounds sought for interference.
8. Sri BS Sachin, learned counsel for complainant
opposed petition by submitting that both Courts on proper
appreciation of material on record, arrived at reasoned findings
convicting accused and therefore, there was no scope for
interference.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused material on record.
10. From above, it is seen that this revision petition is
by accused against concurrent findings convicting accused for
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
& Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope for
interference against concurrent findings would be normally
NC: 2025:KHC:46382
HC-KAR
confined to examining whether findings suffer from perversity
or are contrary to provisions of law.
11. Insofar as first contention that cheque was given as
security as accused was surety for loan obtained by Pruthviraj,
it is seen that complainant - society, has produced loan
application and sanction as Exs.P.6 and 7, which indicate loan
to be obtained jointly by accused along with said Pruthviraj.
Loan Ledger Extract produced as Ex.P.12 would substantiate
amount due. Said material would sufficiently establish legally
enforceable debt.
12. Moreover, contention that cheque was issued as
security, would be an admission about accused signature on it
and its issue to complainant, attracting presumption under
Section 139 of NI Act. Bare denial of relationship of creditor
and debtor or assertion that cheque was issued as security in
absence of specific material to substantiate same would be
insufficient to upset presumption. It is also observed, accused
did not step into witness box to rebut presumption.
NC: 2025:KHC:46382
HC-KAR
13. Insofar as contention about failure to issue and
serve demand notice prior to filing of complaint, complainant
produced demand notice as per Ex.P.3, postal cover as Ex.P.4
showing that notice issued had returned unclaimed. Trial Court
observed, PW1 denied suggestion that notice was not served as
correct address of accused was not mentioned. It noted except
such suggestion, there was no material to establish that notice
was sent to wrong address. It is not established that said
finding is contrary to material on record.
14. Insofar as contention that there was no effort for
recovery of loan amount from other borrower, same is recorded
only to be rejected, as a lending bank would be at liberty to
proceed against any of joint borrowers or surety.
15. Thus, none of grounds urged would be sufficient to
entertain revision. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg*
