[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Naveen Kumar A V on 27 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB
CRL.A No. 822 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.822 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT
S/O ISHWARA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/O ISHA VASHYAM
MODANKAPU POST
BANTWAL MOODA VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA-576122.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
by DEVIKA M
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. NAVEEN KUMAR A.V.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O VISHNU BHAT
R/O ARALLIKATTE
KALANJA VILLAGE
PUTTUR
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574212.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
PUTTUR-574212
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB
CRL.A No. 822 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 413 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2024 IN C.C.NO.444/2014 ON THE
FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M, PUTTUR,
DAKSHINA KANNADA AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.444/2014 AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned
Special Public Prosecutor-II-Vijaykumar Majage for
respondent No.2.
NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB
HC-KAR
2. This appeal is filed against the acquittal order of
the accused for the offences punishable under Section
415, 417, 418, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 469 of Indian
Penal Code. The factual matrix of complainant in the
complaint is that complainant was surprised to receive a
notice dated 25.09.2009 sent by the advocate on behalf of
the said accused calling upon him to pay sum of
Rs.8,05,000/- alleged to be borrowed by the complainant
from the accused. That the complainant was shocked,
flabbergasted and dumb stuck on going through the
allegations made against him in the aforesaid notice. The
complainant doesn't know the accused nor the accused
knows the complainant and accused is a stranger as far as
the complainant is concerned. The accused was having
absolutely no transaction of any kind with the complainant
nor the complainant was having absolutely any transaction
of any kind with the accused. The allegation made in the
said notice is not only false, but false even to the
knowledge of the accused. The photocopy of the legal
NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB
HC-KAR
notice was also produced along with complaint dated
25.09.2009. That on 03.10.2009, the complainant has
given a proper and fitting reply through the counsel for the
accused and reply has been served on the counsel for the
accused and inspite of it, proceedings was initiated and
case is numbered as C.C.No.190/2010 and false complaint
had been filed against the complainant herein by the
accused and the act of the accused is nothing but an
attempt of foul game played by the accused to make
unlawful monetary gain at the cost of the complainant and
to harass the complainant in the society and hence, a
complaint is filed and the case was registered by the
State.
3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence i.e., evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2
and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and respondents have not lead
evidence, however, got marked the document Ex.D1,
Ex.D.2, Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4. The Trial Court having
considered the material on record particularly taking into
NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB
HC-KAR
note of case of the complainant and also the defence of
the accused in paragraph No.20, discussed the same. The
first ground is that the Cheque not belongs to the
complainant and the same pertaining to his mother
Saraswathi Amma and account is also belongs to the
mother and also taken note of waited till disposal of the
case C.C.No.190/2010 and then only pursued the remedy
that too filing a complaint against the accused for the
offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. The above
said complaint had filed against the accused and also
taken note of doubt arises in the mind of the Court in
order to take revenge against the accused after disposal of
the case, the present complaint is filed and comes to the
conclusion that the offences which have been invoked
against the accused is also not come within the purview
and also ingredients of the offences which have been
invoked particularly the oral and documentary evidence, it
has been seen that Cheque belongs to Saraswathi Amma,
who is the mother of the complainant and not belongs to
NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB
HC-KAR
the complainant and dismissed the case by acquitting the
accused.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, present
appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of
the counsel appearing for the appellant that observation
made by the Trial Court is not correct that complaint was
filed after the disposal of earlier case C.C.No.190/2010
and counsel brought to notice of this Court that even the
complaint was filed before the Bantwal Court on
01.04.2010 and no doubt for want of jurisdiction, the
same was returned, but there was a delay of 2 years in
filing the present complaint invoking Section 420 of IPC.
The counsel also not disputes the fact that Cheque belongs
to the mother of the complainant and not belongs to the
complainant.
5. The counsel appearing for the respondent No.1
also submits that notice was given on 25.09.2009 and
though allegedly contend that complaint was given at the
first instance at Bantwal Taluk, even after issuing the
NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB
HC-KAR
notice, there was a delay in filing such complaint and apart
from that when the complaint was returned and not
pursued the remedy for a period of 2 years and only after
coming to know about the result, as a revenge, present
complaint is filed and the same is taken note of by the
Trial Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondent
No.1, admittedly Cheque belongs to the mother of the
complainant and not belongs to the complainant and apart
from that though counsel appearing for the appellant
would submits that complaint was filed in the month of
April-2010 and not disputes the fact that the said
complaint was returned and also not pursued the matter
even after the return for a period of 2 years. It is also not
in dispute that the present complaint arises after the
disposal of the case in C.C.No.190/2010 and having taken
note of all these factors into consideration, the Trial Court
also while passing an order, in detail discussed the same
NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB
HC-KAR
the factual aspects in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 since
there are some allegations against the respondent No.1
and also taken note of the material available on record,
when there was an allegation of forgery and also invoked
the other offences of 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 of IPC
making use of the same and also the Trial Court in
paragraph No.20 while considering the case of
complainant, in detail discussed the same and even taken
note of evidence of Bank Manager P.W.2 and Cheque
belongs to Saraswathi Amma and taken note of disposal of
C.C.No.190/2010 and also taken note of the circumstances
under which the complaint is filed invoking the offence
under Section 420 of IPC. When such being the case,
when reasoned order has been passed by the Trial Court,
we are of the opinion that it is not a case for admission
and hence, no grounds to admit the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:4182-DB
HC-KAR
7. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
