Karnataka High Court
Sri.B. Sreekanth vs B. Sreevidya on 6 January, 2026
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:500
CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1565 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI B. SREEKANTH
S/O B GOPALA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. T2,
CASTLE APARTMENTS,
4TH 'D' CROSS,
GUNDAPPA REDDY LAYOUT,
CHOLANAYALANAHALLI,
R.T. NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 032.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI B.RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT K.R.BHUVANASHRI, ADVOCATE]
AND:
B. SREEVIDYA
W/O B RAJASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Digitally signed by R/AT NO. 56, 1ST MAIN,
TH
GEETHAKUMARI 6 BLOCK, BEL LAYOUT,
PARLATTAYA S CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI
Location: High R.T. NAGAR POST,BANGALORE - 560 032.
Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka [BY SRI C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE] THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED XVIII ACMM AT BENGALURU VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2018 IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED IN C.C.NO.17640/2015 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1933/2018 DATED 28.08.2023 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:500 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2023 HC-KAR THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CAV ORDER Challenging judgment dated 28.08.2023 passed by LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.1933/2023 confirming judgment dated 05.09.2018 passed by XVIII ACMM, Bengaluru, in CC no.17640/2015, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri B Ravindranath, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that this revision petition was against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act' for short). It was submitted, proceedings arose out of a private complainant filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC', for short) accused was relative of complainant and on 25.05.2013 borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- as hand-loan agreeing to repay it within one year with 2% interest per month. After lapse said period and on demand repayment, accused had issued cheque bearing no.526001 dated -3- NC: 2026:KHC:500 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2023 HC-KAR 15.05.2015 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, RT Nagar Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented returned dishonored with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 25.05.2015 and thereafter, even when demand notice dated 19.06.2015 got issued by complainant was served on accused, he failed to repay within time thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P19. On appraisal of incriminating material, accused denied same as false and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Thereafter, accused deposed himself as DW.1 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D4. It was submitted, though accused had setup various defences and substantiated them, trial Court did not consider same in proper perspective and erroneously convicted accused. Even appeal filed was dismissed without proper re-appreciation, leading to this revision.
4. It was submitted, accused had denied existence of any legally enforceable debt for issuance of cheque in question -4- NC: 2026:KHC:500 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2023 HC-KAR and no material to substantiate same were produced. Apart from above, it was specifically contended that complainant's husband had kidnapped accused and snatched Ex.P1 - cheque and had also forced him to sign on various documents, leading to filing of police complaint as per Ex.D1. It was submitted, in NCR no.134/2015, complainant had undertaken as per Ex.D3, not to trouble accused and to pursue his claims in Court. Said defence was also taken in Ex.D4 - reply to Ex.P3 - demand notice. And in cross-examination, PW.1 admitted accused had not executed any agreement, but relied on Ex.P7 - MoU wherein cheque number matching Ex.P1 was mentioned.
5. It was submitted, in addition to above, accused had also disputed financial capacity of complainant to lend money as claimed. Without sufficient material to substantiate same, impugned order of conviction was passed. Thus, findings was contrary to material on record and perverse and called for interference.
6. On other hand, Smt.KR Bhuvanashri, learned counsel appearing for Sri CR Raghavendra Reddy, advocate for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, -5- NC: 2026:KHC:500 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2023 HC-KAR though a complaint was filed alleging kidnap, same was without mentioning date of alleged kidnap. There being no substance in same, it was rightly closed as NCR. It was submitted, accused had admitted his signature on Ex.P1 - cheque, Ex.P7 - MoU as well as on Ex.P6 - Promissory note. Further, in cross- examination of DW.1 on 04.01.2018, he stated that on 13.03.2015, complainant's husband along with others had kidnapped accused and took him to Madanapalli where he was forced to execute 10 cheques. Such being case, complaint filed on 15.05.2015 would only indicate it was based on afterthought. DW.1 also admitted he had not given any complaint against complainant. It was further submitted, Ex.P7
- MoU was drawn on a stamp paper purchased on 21.11.2015, dispelling possibility of backdating it. It was submitted, accused had only admitted, as on date of issuance of cheques, no agreement was executed between parties.
7. It was lastly submitted, to establish financial capacity, complainant had produced several documents i.e. Exs.P9 to P17 - Bank Pass books, Fixed Deposit Receipts and Income Tax Returns ('FDR's and 'ITR's respectively). Thus, -6- NC: 2026:KHC:500 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2023 HC-KAR there was sufficient basis for conviction. It was submitted, both Courts concurrently convicted accused based on well reasoned findings referring to entire material on record and prayed for dismissal of petition.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgments and record.
9. From above, it is seen that revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, on ground of perversity.
10. Insofar as first contention denying existence of legally enforceable debt based on allegation of kidnap and forcing accused to issue cheques and execute documents at that time, reliance is placed on Ex.D1 - complaint, Ex.D2 - acknowledgment and Ex.D3 - statement. But, allegation of kidnap is disputed. Filing of complaint by accused and complainant giving statement as per Ex.D3 are admitted. It is seen, based on complaint, police registered NCR no.134/2015 and after recording of statement of complainant as per Ex.D3, -7- NC: 2026:KHC:500 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2023 HC-KAR closed said proceedings. On perusal, it is seen accused did not disclose date of kidnap in Ex.P8 reply or in Ex.D1 - complaint. And even though same is mentioned in deposition as 13.03.2015, Ex.D1 is filed only after two months on 15.05.2015, without any explanation for delay. Therefore, allegation of kidnap cannot be held to be probabilized. Even admission that no agreement was executed, is clarified to be in reference to date of payment of money. It is seen, date of Ex.P7 - MoU is 29.11.2014 and date of lending of money was 25.05.2013. As such, explanation would hold good. Even in Ex.D3 - statement, complainant has merely undertaken not to pester accused with demand for repayment and agreeing to pursue claim before Courts.
11. On other hand, in course of his cross-examination, accused admitted Ex.P1 as belonging to him and bearing his signature, which would attract presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act. Both Courts have proceeded on basis of presumption to convict accused. Under such circumstances, it cannot be stated that accused probabilized above defence. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC:500 CRL.RP No. 1565 of 2023 HC-KAR
12. Though even finding about financial capacity of complainant is also sought to be assailed, it is seen, complainant not only produced cheque, bank endorsement, demand notice and postal acknowledgment, but also promissory note, MoU, reply, bank passbooks, FDRs, ITRs etc. Both Courts have based their finding about financial capacity based on same, leaving no scope for interference.
13. In view of above, as none of contentions are substantiated, Revision Petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68