Karnataka High Court
C P Diwakar vs Sannegowda on 29 October, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43142
CRL.RP No. 508 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 508 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
C P DIWAKAR,
S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT ANJANEYA KRUPA,
DEVAMMA EXTENTION,
CHANNAPATNA,
HASSSAN - 573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAJWAL B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SANNEGOWDA
S/O CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT AGILE VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN - 573 201.
GEETHAKUMARI ...RESPONDENT
PARLATTAYA S
Location: High (BY SRI PAVAN G.N., ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438
R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED 31.05.2022, PASSED BY THE V ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C AT HASSAN IN C.C.NO.5488/2016 (ANNEXURE-B), B.
SET AIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025, PASSED BY THE V
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN IN
CRL.A.NO.106/2022 (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43142
CRL.RP No. 508 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging judgment and order dated 10.02.2025
passed by V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Hassan, in
Crl.A.no.106/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 31.05.2022 passed by V Addl. Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Hassan, in C.C.no.5488/2016, this revision
petition is filed.
2. Sri Prajwal B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for
Sri Vamshi Krishna C., advocate for petitioner submitted
revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings of
conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short). It was
submitted on an allegation that complainant and accused were
partners in "Pavan Putra Resorts" Partnership Firm, wherein
they had invested Rs.4,02,26,250/- as capital and due to
subsequent differences in partners had led to filing
O.S.no.169/2015 by complainant against accused and his
brothers for rendition of accounts.
3. Said suit ended in compromise on 23.09.2014,
whereunder accused had agreed to pay amount invested by
complainant in two installments with interest at rate of 14%
per annum and issued cheque bearing no.370591 dated
NC: 2025:KHC:43142
HC-KAR
10.06.2016 for Rs.40,22,625/- drawn on Corporation Bank,
Hassan, which when presented for collection, returned
dishonoured with endorsement payment stopped by drawer on
18.07.2016 and even when complainant got issued demand
notice to accused on 08.08.2016, which was duly served,
accused failed to reply or comply with demand, giving rise to
cause of action for filing private complaint.
4. It was submitted on service of summons, accused
appeared and denied allegations and sought to be tried.
Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1
to P8. It was submitted, accused had substantiated his defence
in cross-examination and as such on appraisal of incriminating
material, denied same which was recorded as his statement
under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
('CrPC', for short).
5. It was submitted, trial Court failed to consider facts
and circumstances in proper perspective and directed accused
to pay twice cheque amount of Rs.80,55,250/- and in default to
undergo imprisonment for period of six months. Aggrieved,
accused filed Criminal Appeal no.106/2022. In appeal, a
specific contention was urged that trial Court was not justified
in directing accused to pay double cheque amount especially
NC: 2025:KHC:43142
HC-KAR
when in respect of other cheques issued by accused to
complainant, there was direction to pay cheque amount. On
said grounds sought for allowing revision petition.
6. On other hand, Sri Pavan G.N., learned counsel for
respondent opposed petition. It was submitted, main grounds
urged in revision petition was against imposition of fine i.e.
amount double that off cheque amount. It was submitted,
provisions of NI Act clearly provided for same and while passing
impugned judgment, trial Court as well as Appellate Court had
duly appreciated facts and circumstances and by assigning
specific reasons, directed accused to pay double cheque
amount.
7. Insofar as other cases, it was submitted there was
settlement where terms of settlement included direction to pay
cheque amount with 14% interest per annum. It was
submitted, in case of adoption of said condition, amount
payable by accused would be even more than that ordered by
both Courts. On said grounds sought for dismissal.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and order.
NC: 2025:KHC:43142
HC-KAR
9. At outset, it is seen that this revision petition is filed
by accused against concurrent findings of conviction for offence
under Section 138 of NI Act. Revision is confined only to
imposition of double cheque amount as fine. It is not in dispute
that provisions of NI Act would provide for imposition of double
cheque amount as fine. However said imposition would be a
matter of discretion.
10. While passing impugned judgment, it is seen, trial
Court took note of fact that issuance of cheque was in
pursuance of compromise decree, whereunder accused had
agreed to repay amount to respondent-complainant with
interest at 14% per annum. Said payment was required to be
made from year 2015, ten years have lapsed since. Even if
scope for modification of sentence to direction for payment of
cheque amount with 14% interest is considered, same would
clearly exceed fine amount ordered by trial Court.
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in (2012) 9
SCC 460, has held scope of revision under Section 397 of CrPC
would be confined to findings being perverse or contrary to
statutory provisions. No such ground is established. On other
hand, trial Court had taken note of fact that litigation had
NC: 2025:KHC:43142
HC-KAR
prolonged for six years and transaction was of year 2015 and
found fit to impose fine amount of double cheque amount.
12. While passing impugned judgment, even Appellate
Court has taken note of duration of litigation and fact that
accused would have earned more than fine amount, if amount
were kept in fixed deposit, found fit to moderate sentence to
double cheque amount. Same can neither stated to be suffering
from perversity or being contrary to any statutory provisions.
In view of above, no grounds for interference are made out.
Revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
