[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Murali Krishna. S vs Smt. Ambika K Mani on 18 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10087
CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1099 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI MURALI KRISHNA S
S/O BALASUBRAMANYAM
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.270, 14TH CROSS
6TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANANDA K, ADV.)
AND:
SMT. AMBIKA K MANI
W/O UMESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.121-1, 1ST MAIN
7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR G.M, ADV., FOR
NANDINI M S SRI HARISHA A.S, ADV.,)
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
14.12.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARBNED XII ADDITIONAL
METORPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.15208/2011
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2017 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.26/2016 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10087
CRL.RP No. 1099 of 2017
HC-KAR
REVISIONPETITION AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFENCE
P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed
under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set
aside the judgment and order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the
Court of XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in
CC.No.15208/2011, and the judgment and order dated
04.09.2017 passed by the Court of LIX Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.26/2016.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the
petitioner before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in
CC.No.15208/2011 for the offence punishable under Section
138 of N.I.Act.
4. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner was
acquainted to her and her husband, and he had borrowed a
NC: 2026:KHC:10087
HC-KAR
sum of Rs.5,50,000/- for his urgent needs and towards
repayment of the said amount, he had issued three cheques.
Under two cheques, she had recovered a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-
and the third cheque bearing No.553086 dated 16.04.2011
issued in her favour for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- when presented
for realization was dishonoured by the drawee bank with a
shara 'payment stopped'. The respondent thereafter got issued
legal notice to the petitioner which was duly served and also
replied by the petitioner. However, since the petitioner had
failed to re-pay the amount covered under the cheque in
question inspite of service of notice, respondent had initiated
proceedings against him for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
5. The Trial Court by judgment and order dated 14.12.2015
convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act in CC.No.15208/2011 and sentenced
him to pay fine of Rs.2,05,000/- and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court was confirmed in Crl.A.No.26/2016 by judgment and
NC: 2026:KHC:10087
HC-KAR
order dated 04.09.2017 by the Court of LIX Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. It is under these circumstances,
petitioner is before this Court.
6. Complainant has examined herself as PW-1 and another
witness by name Stanley was examined as PW-2. She had got
marked 12 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-12. On behalf of the
defence, no oral evidence was led. However, three documents
were got marked as Exs.D-1 to D-3.
7. Ex.P-1 is the cheque in question issued by the petitioner
to the respondent. It is not in dispute that the said cheque was
drawn on the bank account of the petitioner maintained by him
in Vijaya Bank, Mysore Road, Bangalore. Petitioner has also not
disputed his signature marked as Ex.P-1(a) in Ex.P-1 - cheque.
Therefore, a presumption arises against him as provided under
Sections 139 read with 118 of the N.I.Act and unless he rebuts
the said presumption by putting forward a probable defence, he
is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
NC: 2026:KHC:10087
HC-KAR
8. It is the specific defence of the petitioner before the Trial
Court that respondent had earlier borrowed a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/- from him under two cheques and the third
cheque was also issued to her for payment of money which was
demanded as loan by her. Petitioner is not liable to pay any
amount to the respondent, and therefore, it cannot be
considered that the cheque in question was issued towards
legally recoverable debt.
9. The material on record would go to show that the
respondent herein had also filed a separate criminal case
against the petitioner herein in Crime No.36/2011 before the
Chamarajapet Police Station and in the said case, after
investigation, police have filed a charge sheet against the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468,
471, 506 IPC and a case was registered against the petitioner
in CC.No.4614/2012. Ex.P-11 is the certified copy of the charge
sheet filed in Crime No.36/2011. It appears that petitioner had
filed a separate complaint against the respondent before
Jayanagar Police Station in Crime No.248/2011 for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 499, 468 & 471 IPC and in the
NC: 2026:KHC:10087
HC-KAR
said case, after completing investigation, the police had filed 'B'
report which is said to have been accepted by the jurisdictional
Civil Court of Magistrate.
10. The documentary evidence placed before the Trial Court
by the petitioner as per Exs.D-1 to D-3 is not helpful to prove
the defence raised by him before the Trial Court. It is under
these circumstances, the Trial Court having held that the
petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that arose
against him as provided under Sections 139 read with 118 of
IPC, has rightly convicted him for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of N.I.Act.
11. The Appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, has rightly
confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
Trial Court. Even the order of sentence passed against the
petitioner is just and proportionate and the same does not call
for any interference. Under the circumstances, I am of the
opinion that this revision petition lacks merit, and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
NC: 2026:KHC:10087
HC-KAR
12. The amount in deposit is permitted to be withdrawn by
the respondent.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
