Karnataka High Court
Abdul Hameed vs M V Devaprasad on 28 October, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42910
CRL.RP No. 221 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 221 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
ABDUL HAMEED
S/O LATE K MOHAMMED,
AGED 60 YEARS,
R/O 1ST CROSS, VIDYANAGARA,
OPPOSITE MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL,
RAMANAHALLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY,
AND ALSO R/O VASTHARE
VILLAGE AND POST,
CHIKAMAGALURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. DIGANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KAMALUDDIN AHAMAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M V DEVAPRASAD
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI S/O M VEERASHETTY,
PARLATTAYA S AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
Location: High AGRICULTURIST,
Court of Karnataka R/O MUGTHIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
CHIKMAGALURU TALUK
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE
JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKAMAGALURU IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.229/2021 CONFIRMING JUDGMENT PASSED IN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42910
CRL.RP No. 221 of 2023
HC-KAR
C.C.NO.1083/2019 DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKAMAGALURU.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Though this matter is listed for orders, with consent of
learned counsel for parties, matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and order dated 19.11.2022
passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.229/2021 confirming judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2021 passed by II Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, in CC
no.1083/2019, this revision petition is filed.
3. Sri Diganth, learned counsel appearing advocate
for petitioner (accused) submitted, revision petition is by
accused challenging concurrent orders of his conviction for
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short),
NC: 2025:KHC:42910
HC-KAR
4. Sole ground on which revision petition was filed was
that respondent (complainant) on very same assertions and
allegations against accused had also filed civil suit in OS
no.133/2020 on file of Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, for
recovery of alleged advance amount paid under alleged
agreement. It was submitted, invocation of civil suit as well as
criminal prosecution would be contrary to ratio laid down by
this Court in Venkatesh Bhat A. v. Rohidas Shenoy reported
in 2010 CRL.L.J. 1061 and sought for allowing revision
petition.
5. On other hand, Sri G Pavan Kumar, learned counsel
for respondent opposed writ petition. Relying upon decision of
this Court Sri Lalji Kesha Vaid v. Sri Dayanand R., reported
in 2025 (3) Kar.L.J. 152, it was submitted, this Court in
aforesaid decision had held there would be no bar against
maintainability of civil suit for recovery of money as well as
private complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of
Act. It was submitted, OS no.133/2020 was decreed on
28.02.2025 and no appeal has been filed against it. In view of
above and since other contentions of accused disputing
agreement, etc. would stand discharged. It was submitted,
NC: 2025:KHC:42910
HC-KAR
while passing decree, trial Court had taken note of pendency of
these proceedings and had stated that any amount paid by
accused in these proceedings were to be accounted for while
computing complainant's claim under decree. Same would
sufficiently safeguard interest of accused and there would be no
ground for double claim as apprehended.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and order.
7. From above, it is seen that this revision petition is
by accused against concurrent findings convicting accused for
offence punishable under Section 138 of Act. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr.
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held, revisional jurisdiction
would be confined mainly to findings being perverse or under
infraction and statutory provisions. Sole ground urged herein
complainant's claim was purely civil in nature and having
approached Civil Court for civil remedy against accused. Similar
pursuits of criminal prosecution would be contrary to law.
8. Perusal of decision in Venkatesh Bhat A.'s case
(supra) would indicate that in case of serious dispute about
NC: 2025:KHC:42910
HC-KAR
transactions, this Court had in facts and circumstances of said
case confirmed order of acquittal. Unlike in present case where
complainant's suit has been decreed and stated to have
attained finality thereby dispelling dispute about monetary
transactions between complainant and accused. Under such
circumstances, ratio in Venkatesh Bhat A.'s case (supra)
would not apply. On other hand, this Court in Sri Lalji Kesha
Vaid's case (supra) has clearly held both remedies would be
tenable.
9. Apart from above, it is also seen that trial Court
while decreeing OS no.133/2020 made it clear that any amount
paid by accused could be accounted for claims of complainant
under decree. Hence, no ground to interfere. Revision petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
