[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mrs.Ramadevi vs Mr.Suraj on 18 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9973
CRL.RP No. 60 of 2022
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.60 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MRS. RAMADEVI
W/O KISSAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.7/1, BEHIND KPT
VYASANAGAR, KADRI
MANGALURU - 572 122
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. SURAJ
S/O NAGARAJ N
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.1-80/1
Digitally
signed by NULLIPADY NEST
NANDINI M S
DEVINAGARA
Location:
HIGH COURT PACHANADY
OF BONDEL POST
KARNATAKA
MANGALURU - 572 122
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HANJER RAGHAVENDRA BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A
NO.106/2021, DATED 23.11.2021 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION DATED 06.08.2021 IN C.C.NO.4149/2019
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9973
CRL.RP No. 60 of 2022
HC-KAR
PASSED BY THE IV J.M.F.C MANGALURU AND TO DIRECT THE
ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 Criminal revision
petition filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C, with
a prayer to set aside the judgment and order passed in
C.C.No.4149 of 2019 dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Court of
JMFC-IV Court, Mangaluru, D.K, and the judgment and order
passed in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 dated 23.11.2021 by
the Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Respondent herein had initiated proceedings against
the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act') in
C.C.No.4149 of 2019 before the jurisdictional Court of
Magistrate, Mangaluru. It is the case of the respondent that
petitioner and her husband had borrowed a hand loan of
NC: 2026:KHC:9973
HC-KAR
₹.2,50,000/- and towards repayment of the said amount, the
petitioner had issued two post dated cheques for total sum of
Rs.2,60,000/-. The cheque bearing No.357740 dated
20.03.2018 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Bejai, Mangaluru in
favour of the respondent was dishonoured when presented for
realisation and therefore, a statutory notice was got issued on
behalf of the respondent, which was allegedly served on the
petitioner herein. The petitioner had not repaid the amount
covered under the cheque in question in spite of service of
notice. Therefore, proceedings was initiated by the respondent
against him before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate in
C.C.No.4149 of 2019 for offence punishable under Section 138
of N.I. Act. The Trial Court had convicted the petitioner in the
said proceeding and sentenced her to pay fine of ₹.2,54,000/-
and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6
months. Assailing the said judgment and order of conviction
and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.4149 of 2019
dated 06.08.2021, the petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal
No.106 of 2021 before the Court of VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dakshina kannada, Mangaluru which was
NC: 2026:KHC:9973
HC-KAR
dismissed by judgment and order dated 23.11.2021. It is under
these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
statutory appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the
Trial Court has not been heard nor disposed of on merits by the
First Appellate Court. He submits that, since the petitioner had
failed to comply the interim order passed in Criminal Appeal
No.106 of 2021, wherein she was directed to deposit 20% of
the fine amount, the Appellate Court has held that the appeal is
not maintainable and accordingly has dismissed the same.
Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that, the Appellate Court was fully justified in
dismissing the appeal since the petitioner admittedly had not
complied the interim order passed by the Appellate Court. He
submits that, the Appellate Court has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL.S.S V VIRENDER
NC: 2026:KHC:9973
HC-KAR
GANDHI - 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 18 and accordingly has
prays to dismiss the this revision petition.
6. Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 was filed by the
petitioner herein before the First Appellate Court under Section
374 of Cr.P.C, challenging the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The said appeal is a
statutory appeal, which was required to be considered on
merits by the Appellate Court. However, the Appellate Court
placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of SURINDER SINGH DESWAL (supra) has held
that, since the petitioner had failed to comply the interim order
passed in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021, the appeal could not
be maintained. The Appellate Court has completely misread and
misunderstood the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of SURINDER SINGH DESWAL (supra). In the said
case it was held that, when suspension of sentence by the Trial
Court is granted on a condition, non compliance of the
condition has adverse effect on continuation of suspension of
sentence and the Court which has suspended the sentence on a
condition, after noticing non-compliance of the condition can
NC: 2026:KHC:9973
HC-KAR
very well hold that the suspension of sentence stands vacated
due to non-compliance.
7. The Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the
aforesaid aspects of the matter and has erred in dismissing the
statutory appeal filed by the petitioner as not maintainable.
Therefore, on this short ground, this Criminal Revision Petition
has to succeed and the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K,
Mangaluru in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 dated 23.11.2021
has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the
Appellate Court with a direction to consider Criminal Appeal
No.106 of 2021 on its merits in accordance with law within a
time frame since the proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner herein by the respondent in year 2019.
8. Accordingly the following :-
ORDER
i. Criminal revision petition is allowed.
ii. The judgment and order dated 23.11.2021
passed in Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 by
the Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
NC: 2026:KHC:9973
HC-KAR
D.K, Mangaluru is set aside and the matter is
remitted to the Appellate Court with a direction
to consider Criminal Appeal No.106 of 2021 on
merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously
as possible, but not later than a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
iii. The petitioner has complied the interim order
passed by this Court and 50% of the fine
imposed by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.4149/2019 has been already deposited.
The said deposit shall be subject to result of
Criminal Appeal No.106/2021.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
