[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sudarshan P vs Prameela on 31 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5543
CRL.RP No. 181 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 181 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SUDARSHAN P
S/O PRAKASH K.C
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O. 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN
LEELAVATHI EXTENSION
MADDUR TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR K, ADV.)
AND:
PRAMEELA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O 7TH CROSS
V.V. NAGARA, MADDUR TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by
NANDINI M S THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S
Location:
HIGH COURT 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE BOTH THE
OF
KARNATAKA JUDGMENTS DATED 31.12.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE I
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANDYA IN CRL.A
NO.188/2025 AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.08.2025
PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MADDUR IN
CC NO.1900/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED OT CONVICT
THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5543
CRL.RP No. 181 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Complainant is before this Court in this revision
petition filed under Section 438 R/w Section 442 of BNSS 2023,
with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Maddur in
C.C.No.1900 of 2022 dated 02.08.2025 and the judgment and
order passed in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2025 by the Court of
I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya dated 31.12.2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner, who is the
complainant before the Trial Court that he had paid a sum of
₹.4,50,000/- to the respondent as hand loan on 25.12.2020
and towards repayment of the said amount, the respondent
had issued Cheque bearing No.502754 dated 25.03.2021 for a
sum of ₹.4,50,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Maddur Branch,
Mandya District in his favour. The said cheque on presentation
of for realisation was returned with a shara "Funds insufficient".
Complainant had got issued legal notice to the respondent,
NC: 2026:KHC:5543
HC-KAR
which was duly replied by her stating that she had issued 'stop
payment' in respect of the cheque in question in the year 2019
itself. She has stated that she had no transaction with the
petitioner, who has misused the said cheque and presented for
realization in the year 2021. After receipt of the reply notice,
petitioner had approached the Trial Court and filed a private
complaint against the respondent for offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. The respondent, after receipt of summons in the
said proceedings from the Trial Court had appeared before the
Trial Court and claimed to be tried. To substantiate his case,
the petitioner had examined himself as PW1 and got marked six
documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The respondent had examined
herself as DW1 and another witness was examined as DW2.
Three documents were got marked in support of her defence as
Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. According to the petitioner, a sum of
₹.4,50,000/- was paid by him to the respondent in cash on
25.12.2020 and towards repayment of the said amount, the
cheque in question was issued by the respondent on
25.03.2021.
NC: 2026:KHC:5543
HC-KAR
5. The respondent has set up a specific defence that
the cheque in question was not issued by her to the petitioner
towards discharge of any legally recoverable debt. She has
contended that she had issued instructions to her banker in the
month of January 2019 itself to stop payment on the cheque in
question. She has raised such a defence in her reply notice,
which is marked as Ex.P6 in the present case. In support of her
defence she has examined herself as DW1 and her bank
manager was examined as DW2. Ex.D1 is the stop payment
instruction given by the petitioner to her banker. DW2, who is
the manager of the bank also has stated that DW1 had filed an
application on 23.01.2019 requesting 'stop payment' on the
cheque in question. The presumption which was available
against the respondent was therefore successfully rebutted by
her by producing necessary oral and documentary evidence
before the Trial Court. Therefore, it was for the petitioner /
complainant to prove his transaction with the respondent
before the Trial Court by producing necessary oral and
documentary evidence. Petitioner has failed to prove his
transaction and has not produced any material before the Court
except the cheque in question to show that he had paid a sum
NC: 2026:KHC:5543
HC-KAR
of ₹.4,50,000/- to the respondent in cash as alleged. It is under
these circumstances, the Trial Court has acquitted the
respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. The said judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court in C.C.No.1900 of 2022 dated 02.08.2025 has
been confirmed by the jurisdictional Court of District and
Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2025 by
judgment and order dated 31.12.2025. Thereby, concurrent
findings of acquittal has been recorded in favour of the
respondent. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any good
ground to entertain this petition.
7. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
