Karnataka High Court
Sri Shashank K vs M/S Canfin Homes Limited on 5 November, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44655
CRL.RP No. 915 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 915 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHASHANK .K
S/O KASHINATH .K.R
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO. 16, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
PIPELINE ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA .G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S CANFIN HOMES LIMITED,
HAVING CORPORATED OFFICE AT
NO. 29/1, 2ND FLOOR,
M N KRISHNA RAO ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANGER
HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT
Digitally signed
NO. 29/1, 1ST FLOOR,
by ANUSHA V
M N KRISHNA RAO ROAD,
Location: High BASAVANAGUDI,
Court of BENGALURU-560 004.
Karnataka REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY .D, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W
442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2023
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.244/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXIII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-64)
AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24.02.2021 IN CC.NO.6864/2016 BY THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND
ACMM COURT, AT BENGALURU (SCCH-26).
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44655
CRL.RP No. 915 of 2025
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 order dated 21.06.2023 passed by LXIII Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.244/2021
confirming order dated 24.02.2021 passed by XXIV Additional
Small Causes Judge and MACT & ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in
C.C.no.6864/2016, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri G Mahendra, learned counsel for petitioner
(accused) submitted, petition was against concurrent erroneous
findings convicting petitioner for offence under Section 138 of
NI Act. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) was a
registered Company carrying on business in housing finance. It
filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that
accused had obtained financial assistance in a sum of
Rs.26,87,000/- for purchase of flat at Polaryk Enclave on EMI of
Rs.28,456/-. It was further alleged that accused had
Rs.17,0736/- as overdue amount and therefore, on 28.08.2015
complainant got issued demand notice. On receipt, accused
approached complainant and issued cheque no.000012 dated
NC: 2025:KHC:44655
HC-KAR
07.10.2015 for Rs.28,54,726/- drawn on HDFC bank ltd.,
Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for
collection, returned with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on
08.10.2015. And even when complainant got issued demand
notice dated 03.11.2015 served on accused on 06.11.2015,
accused had failed to discharge liability and thereby committed
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
('NI Act' for short).
3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied
allegations and sought trial. Complainant examined its Chief
Manager as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P11. On appraisal
of incriminating material, which was denied, statement was
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused
examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D.4.
4. It was submitted, main contentions of accused
before trial Court were, firstly, cheque in question was
submitted as security for payment of EMI. Secondly, loan was
taken for purchase of flat in name of accused. However, it was
later found that said flat was riddled in litigation with several
persons staking claim over it, as a result of which he was not in
NC: 2025:KHC:44655
HC-KAR
possession. It was submitted, even Rs.16,00,000/- remitted by
petitioner was not accounted for. And without mentioning about
above proceedings, complainant had initiated separate
proceedings on cheque no.000009 for Rs.1,08,94,370/-, which
was fraudulent in nature. It was submitted, both Courts had
failed to appreciate same. Therefore, impugned judgments
called for interference.
5. ON other hand, Sri Narayana Swamy, learned
counsel for respondent opposed petition.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused material on
record.
7. This revision petition is by accused against
concurrent finding of conviction for offence punishable under
Section 138 of NI Act, on specific grounds.
8. Insofar as first contention that cheque was given as
security, Courts have time and again observed that there was
no separate classification amongst cheques as 'security
cheques' and bare contention as such would not upset
presumptions under NI Act. On other hand, such defence would
NC: 2025:KHC:44655
HC-KAR
admit financial transaction between complainant and accused
i.e., relationship of creditor and debtor, thereby attracting
presumption under Section 139 of NI Act that cheque was
issued towards repayment of legally recoverable debt.
9. Though, said presumption is rebuttable by setting
up probable defence, it cannot be so on basis of every possible
probability, but one that appears reasonable applying standards
of normal prudent man. Both Courts noted that there was no
other material to substantiate such contention and nothing
material was elicited during cross-examination of complainant.
Therefore rejection of such contention would be in accordance
with law.
10. Second contention that, Apartment for which loan
obtained, was in litigation and accused was not in possession is
noted only to be rejected. When obtaining financial assistance,
is admitted, liability to repay would subsist regardless of any
dispute with regard to title.
11. Even next contention that complainant had initiated
proceedings for recovery of another sum of Rs.1,08,94,370/-,
which was also stated to be part of same loan, would not hold
NC: 2025:KHC:44655
HC-KAR
much water, as accused would at best be entitled to raise such
contention in said matter by establishing that claim herein was
for entire dues.
12. Thus, none of contentions urged are sufficient to
upset presumption available to complainant. It is seen that
while passing impugned judgments, both Courts have referred
to contentions urged and arrived at reasoned finding by
reference to material on record.
Hence, no grounds to interfere. Revision petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
Psg
