Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha S vs Renuka on 14 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46658
CRL.RP No. 755 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 755 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA S.,
S/O SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1025, 2ND 'A' CROSS,
3RD MAIN, JANATHA NAGAR,
NEAR MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE,
MYSURU - 570 029.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI OMKAR MUTTAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RENUKA
W/O PRAKASH D.S.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.704, 11TH CROSS,
JANATHA NAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 029.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V (BY SRI SHIVARAJU K.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RATHAN S., ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
Karnataka COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 15.02.2023 IN CRL.A.NO.168/2022 PASSED BY THE VII
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDL.CIVIL
JUDGE AT MYSURU IN C.C.NO.1169/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46658
CRL.RP No. 755 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment dated 15.02.2023 passed by VII
Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.no.168/2022
confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.11.2021 passed by I Additional Civil Judge, Mysuru, in
C.C.no.1169/2016, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Omkar Muttagi, learned counsel appearing for
Sri M. Sharass Chandra, advocate for petitioner (accused)
submitted that this revision petition was against concurrent
erroneous findings convicting accused 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 complainant
and accused were known to each other and accused had
borrowed sum of Rs.4,85,000/- on 02.02.2016 and issued
cheque bearing no.030472 dated 15.03.2016, drawn on State
NC: 2025:KHC:46658
HC-KAR
Bank of India, Kuvempu Nagara Branch, Mysuru, towards
repayment.
4. And when cheque was presented, it returned with
endorsement dated 17.03.2016 as "funds insufficient" and even
when demand notice dated 06.04.2016 got issued by
complainant was duly served on 07.04.2016, accused failed to
reply or repay amount, thereby committing offence under
Section 138 of NI Act.
5. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied
charges and sought to be tried. Complainant examined herself
as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P8. On appraisal of
incriminating material, accused denied same. His statement
under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused
examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exhibits D1 and D2.
6. It was submitted, accused had set up substantial
defence of non-existence of relationship of creditor and debtor
and about issuance of cheque as a security for chit operated by
complainant's husband. It was submitted, in cross-examination
of PW.1, it was elicited that accused was complainant
NC: 2025:KHC:46658
HC-KAR
husband's friend apart from an admission that monthly income
of complainant's husband was around Rs.30,000/-, while that
of accused was around Rs.15,000/- per month. Trial Court also
failed to notice that complainant admitted she was housewife.
Thus, she lack financial capacity to lend such huge amount. Yet
Trial Court convicted accused. Even appeal preferred was
dismissed without proper re-appreciation. It was submitted,
thus judgments of both Courts suffered from perversity
especially insofar as findings about financial capacity of
complainant as well as about cheque issued as security.
7. On other hand, Sri Shivaraju K.M., learned counsel
appearing for Sri Rathan S., advocate for complainant submits
that both Courts have concurrently convicted accused for
offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and there would
be no scope for interference.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgments.
9. From above, it is seen that this revision petition is
by accused challenging concurrent findings of conviction. Main
NC: 2025:KHC:46658
HC-KAR
ground urged is perversity of findings. Firstly, insofar as
financial capacity of complainant, reliance is placed on
admission by PW.1 that she was a housewife and her husband's
earning was around Rs.30,000/- per month. Second contention
is about issuance of cheque as security for chit fund operated
by complainant's husband. However, very contention that
cheque was issued as security would admit signature of
accused on cheque. Moreover, cheque is issued in name of
complainant, thereby attracting presumption under Section 139
of NI Act.
10. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Rangappa v. Mohan, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, said
presumption would not be absolute but rebuttable. Merely
eliciting admission that complainant was a housewife would not
be sufficient to upset presumption when complainant has
disclosed that monthly income of her husband was Rs.30,000/-.
11. Apart from above, next contention that cheque was
issued as security would require to be noted only to be rejected
as accused failed to examine any other chit member to
establish that complainant's husband was operating chit and
NC: 2025:KHC:46658
HC-KAR
was receiving signed cheques as security for payment of chit
amount. Besides above accused also failed to issue reply on
receipt of demand notice, which would lead to an inference
against him.
12. It is seen that while passing impugned judgments,
Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have adverted to above
factors i.e. material on record and arrived at respective
conclusions by assigning proper reasons.
13. Thus, no case of perversity is made out. Revision
petition is without merit and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
