Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha G vs Sri Muniraja on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
CRL.A No. 845 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 845 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJUNATHA G
S/O LATE GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 42, 8TH CROSS,
MAHESHWARINAGARA,
YELAHANKA B.B ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI MUNIRAJA
ALSO KNOWN AS M MUNIRAJAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT SATHNUR VILLAGE,
COURT OF BAGALUR POST, JALA HOBLI,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU NORTH-562 157.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C (U/S 419(4)
BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER
OF ACQUITTAL DTD 14.03.2025 PASSED BY THE XII ACJM,
BENGALURU, IN CC.NO.3072/2020 AND CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
CRL.A No. 845 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal
passed in C.C.No.3072/2020 dated 14.03.2025 by the XII Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as
'the Trial Court' for short), whereby the Trial Court dismissed
the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant against the
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as
'the N.I. Act' for short).
2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before
the Trial Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is as
follows:
The accused is well acquainted with the complainant.
During the month of October, 2015, the accused along with his
brother Munithimmarayappa approached the complainant to
borrow a hand loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to clear his business
commitments. Based on the close relationship, the complainant
agreed to arrange the said money and advanced the same as a
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
hand loan to the accused i.e., Rs.15,00,000/- in the presence
of said Munithimmarayappa during the first week of October,
2015. Though the accused promised to repay the same within
six months, later he extended the time for a period of one year.
However, even after lapse of one year, he failed to repay the
same. Finally, based on the repeated request of the
complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.099219
drawn on UTI Bank (now Axis Bank) Yelahanka New Town
Branch, Bengaluru dated 27.09.2019 for a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant towards discharging the
legally recoverable debt. When the complainant presented the
said cheque for encashment, the same was dishonored and an
endorsement issued to that effect stating 'Account closed'. The
same was intimated to the accused by the complainant by
issuing a legal notice dated 19.11.2019. The said notice was
duly served to the accused. Despite, the accused neither
replied to the notice nor repaid the hand loan. Hence, left with
no other option, the complainant filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Trial
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
court. After service of notice, the accused appeared before the
Trial Court.
4. In order to prove the case before the Trial Court,
the complainant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 9
documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The accused also examined himself
as DW.1 and marked 1 document on his behalf as Ex.D1.
5. On assessing oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act, as under:
"ORDER
Acting U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C the accused is
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section
138 and Section 142 of NI Act.
The bail bond of the accused shall stand
cancelled."
Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Shridhara K.,
for the appellant. Though notice served to the accused, he
remained absent.
7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant/complainant is that the Trial Court has grossly
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
erred while acquitting the accused despite the complainant
placing sufficient evidence and documents before the Trial
Court to prove the legally recoverable debt against the accused
for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. According to him, the accused
approached him in the month of October, 2015 along with his
brother Munithimmarayappa and requested for a hand loan of
Rs.15,00,000/- to clear his business commitments. Since the
brother of the accused was the close friend of complainant, he
agreed to pay the hand loan to the accused. Further, at that
relevant point of time, the complainant had sufficient amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- by virtue of the amount received i.e.,
Rs.25,00,000/- by cancellation of Sale Agreement dated
12.03.2015.
8. According to the learned counsel, the acquaintance
of the accused and complainant through the brother of accused
one Munithimmarayappa is not seriously disputed by the
accused. To prove the lending capacity of the complainant,
apart from his oral evidence he also placed the document i.e.,
the Agreement of Sale entered by him on 21.07.2014 with one
Hanumantharayappa for a sale consideration of Rs.29,00,000/-
in respect of property bearing site No.310/78/17/8/2 situated
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
at Shivanahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk
as per Ex.P8. Subsequently, on 12.03.2015, the said Sale
Agreement was cancelled between the complainant and the
vendor Hanumantharayappa by entering into an cancellation of
Agreement of Sale dated 12.03.2015 and thereby his vendor
refunded the advance sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- to
the complainant as per Ex.P9.
9. The learned counsel further contended that the
specific case of the complainant is that in the month of
October, 2015, the accused approached him for a hand loan of
Rs.15,00,000/- and he paid the same which was readily
available with him. The specific defence of the accused is that
the complainant is a stranger to him and absolutely there is no
transaction with the complainant as alleged by him in the
complaint is totally far from truth and not sustainable for the
reason that before lodging this private complaint the accused
himself lodged the complaint against the complainant before
the Bagalur Police Station on 27.09.2019 as per Ex.P7 stating
that he borrowed a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the
complainant for his urgent financial need. The said complaint
was received and endorsed by Bagalur Police as per Ex.P7. The
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
learned counsel further contended that after return of the
cheque in question for the reason 'Account Closed',
immediately the complainant got issued a legal notice to the
accused. Though the said legal notice served on him, he failed
to reply the said legal notice. Mere denial of cheque in question
and loan amount before the Trial Court may not be sufficient to
overcome from the accusation of the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act without placing any probable or
believable defence with documents. Hence, according to the
learned counsel, all these circumstances are not properly
appreciated by the Trial Court and as such, the impugned
judgment passed by the Trial court is liable to set-aside and
accused be convicted for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I. Act. With these submissions, he prays to allow
the appeal.
10. I have considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant and also carefully perused the
documents and records made available before this Court
including the Trial Court judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
11. It could be gathered from records, issuance of
cheque in question and signature of the accused on it is not
seriously disputed by the accused. Though a suggestion was
made in the cross-examination of PW.1-complainant by denying
the signature of accused on Ex.P1, however, the accused
denied the same and specifically stated that in his presence the
accused signed the cheque in question. It is the defence of the
accused that the complainant is a stranger to him. However, on
perusal of his chief-examination it is stated that there was a
business rivalry between accused and his brother
Munithimmarayappa and the said Munithimmarayappa is the
close friend of complainant, as such, the complainant colluding
with the brother of accused, misused the cheque in question for
unlawful gain on the instruction of his brother
Munithimmarayappa. According to the accused, in the year
2011, his Bank account was closed and he had not issued any
cheque to the complainant thereafter. However, on perusal of
Ex.P7 i.e., the complaint lodged by the accused before the
Bagalur Police on 27.09.2015, the same depicts that the
accused for his urgent financial requirement, approached the
complainant through his brother Munithimmarayappa and
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
borrowed a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant
and repaid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- out of the said loan amount
and failed to repay the remaining balance. As such, on
27.09.2019, the complainant along with his henchmen
approached the accused and made an attempt to assault the
accused. The said complaint was received and endorsed by the
Bagaluru Police. Hence, thus it is clears that the accused had
borrowed hand loan from the complainant and failed to repay
the said loan amount. Though the complainant stated in Ex.P7
that he obtained hand loan only to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-
and repaid Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant, to substantiate
the said aspect, the complainant has not produced any piece of
documents/evidence, instead strangely stated that the
complainant is a stranger in his defence before the Trial Court.
12. Further, the complainant questioned the lending
capacity of accused i.e., the loan of Rs.15,00,000/- in the
cross-examination of PW.1. However, to prove the same, the
complainant produced Exs.P8 and P9 i.e., Agreement of Sale
entered between one Hanumantharayappa for purchase of
landed property for a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- and the payment
of advance sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- to the vendor
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
and subsequently, the said Agreement of Sale was cancelled
and by virtue of cancellation of Sale Agreement dated
12.03.2015 as per Ex.P9, the complainant received a sum of
Rs.25,00,000/- from his vendor. Hence, an amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- was readily available with the complainant at
the time of advancing the loan amount to the accused.
13. It is further stated by the accused that he had
closed his Bank account in the year 2011 itself and thereafter,
he had not issued any cheque including Ex.P1 to anybody and
to that effect, he placed the document-Ex.D1, however the
signature of the accused on Ex.P1 is not seriously disputed by
the accused. In such circumstance, it cannot be held that mere
closing of Bank account by the accused itself would take away
his liability of him repayment of loan amount.
14. In such circumstance, in my considered view, the
Trial Court has erred while acquitting the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act by overlooking
sufficient evidence placed by the complainant. Nonetheless, the
accused failed to put forward a probable defence to rebut the
initial presumption arising in favor of the complainant under
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
Sections 118 and 130 of the N.I. Act. In that view of the
matter, the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act is proved against the accused by the complainant with
reliable evidence and documents. Hence, interference in the
impugned judgment is required. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following.
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment dated 14.03.2025 in
C.C.No.3072/2020 passed by the XII Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru is
set-aside.
iii. The accused is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.
act.
iv. Since the transaction is of the year 2015,
though the cheque amount is of
Rs.15,00,000/-, the accused shall pay a fine
of Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant within
a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment,
failing which, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40093
HC-KAR
v. Registry is directed to send back the Trial
Court Records along with a copy of this
judgment to the concerned Trial Court,
forthwith.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
