Dismissed¶49

Mr. Keshav Daga v. Miss. Nilisha Maheshwari

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2025CRL.RP/1134/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act; cheque dishonour endorsed 'payment stopped by drawer'; criminal revision under Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C. (Ss.438/442 BNSS) against concurrent findings; limited scope of revision per Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460; financial capacity of complainant (student/benami contention); Ex.P12 bank statement showing two transfers of Rs.25,00,000/- each; legally enforceable debt; cheque no.016985 for Rs.5,00,000/- dated 25.01.2021 Axis Bank Vijayanagara Branch; demand notice Ex.P4 and corrigendum Ex.P8; unaccounted repayment of Rs.15,00,000/-; CRL.RP No.1134 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka; Ravi V Hosmani; revision petition dismissed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed.

What did the court decide?

There is no dispute about compliance with the timeline prescribed in Section 138 of NI Act. ¶44

Mr. Keshav Daga Vs Miss. Nilisha Maheshwari — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent convictions of the accused under Section 138 NI Act should be interfered with in this revision petition, given his contention that the complainant, being a student at the time of the alleged lending, lacked financial capacity to lend Rs.50,00,000/- and acted as benami for her father +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

There is no dispute about compliance with the timeline prescribed in Section 138 of NI Act.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

To substantiate payment, the complainant produced her bank account statement as Ex.P12; Exhibits P12(a) and (b) show two remissions of Rs.25,00,000/- each from the complainant's account to the accused, and since the transfer was account-to-account, there is no room to dispute the complainant's financial capacity or the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

¶44

Key takeaways

Even if the complainant had borrowed the said money from her father as contended by the accused, it would not take the matter out of the purview of Section 138 of NI Act.ratio¶44
The cheque in question is for Rs.5,00,000/-; the demand notice (Ex.P4) and corrigendum notice (Ex.P8) demanded the cheque amount; there is no material or technical inconsistency so as to invalidate the conviction, and perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1 discloses no suggestion of unaccounted repayment; therefore none of the grounds urged carries any substance.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ravi V Hosmani, J.) dismissed CRL.RP No.1134 of 2025 filed under Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C. (renumbered Ss.438/442 BNSS) challenging the appellate judgment dated 03.05.2025 in Crl.A.No.1231/2023 confirming the conviction under S.138 NI Act and sentence dated 03.07.2023 in C.C.No.36255/2021. Relying on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 (scope of interference against concurrent findings limited to contrariety to statutory provisions or perversity), the Court found compliance with the S.138 timelines undisputed; the complainant's bank statement (Ex.P12, with P12(a) and (b)) evidenced two account-to-account remissions of Rs.25,00,000/- each to the accused, leaving no room to dispute her financial capacity or the legally enforceable debt, and even borrowing from her father would not take the matter outside S.138. The demand and corrigendum notices (Ex.P4, Ex.P8) sought only the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (cheque no.016985 dated 25.01.2021, Axis Bank), PW.1's cross-examination contained no suggestion of unaccounted repayment of Rs.15,00,000/-, and no material or technical inconsistency invalidated the conviction. Revision petition dismissed; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed of; Registry directed to remit Trial Court Records forthwith.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44351 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1134 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. KESHAV DAGA S/O. SRI. RADHEYSHAM DAGA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A NO.537, AMMA, III STAGE DR. H. SRINIVASAIAH ROAD, GATTIGERE, BEML LAYOUT, NEAR BEML LAYOUT, HEATER TANK, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098. AND ALSO AT C/O. TEXURE ENTERPRISES, PARTNER, NO.38, PEENYA II PHASE, II STAGE, OPP. SBI BANK, BENGALURU - 560 058.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI CHAKRAVARTHY D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI Y.S. HANUMANTHA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MISS. NILISHA MAHESHWARI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O SRI GOVINDA R. SARDA, R/A NO.830, GROUND FLOOR, 16^TH MAIN, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI CHANDRA SHEKARA K. ,ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1.SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.07.2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVI A.C.M.M BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.36255/2021, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I ACT AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:44351 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging judgment dated 03.05.2025 passed by LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53), in Crl.A.no.1231/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.2023 passed by XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C.no.36255/2021, this revision petition is filed.

¶24

Sri Chakravarthy D., learned counsel appearing for Sri Y.S. Hanumantha Reddy, advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted that revision petition is against concurrent orders of conviction recorded against accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ( 'NI Act ', for short).

¶25

It was submitted, on a complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (' Cr.P.C ', for short) by respondent (complainant) alleging that accused had approached complainant seeking financial assistance which was extended to extent of Rs.50,00,000/- and for discharge of

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44351 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

balance outstanding, accused had issued cheque bearing no.016985, dated 25.01.2021 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Vijayanagara Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection on 25.01.2021 returned with endorsement on 29.01.2021 as "payment stopped by drawer".

¶29

And despite service of demand notice and corrigendum notice got issued by complainant, accused neither replied nor made payment. Thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶30

On appearance, accused denied allegations and sought to be tried. Complainant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. Denial of incriminating material by accused was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, thereafter, accused examined himself as DW.1, but, did not got marked any documents.

¶31

On consideration and despite accused having substantiated his defence denying legally enforceable debt as well as financial capacity of complainant, without proper consideration Trial Court proceeded to convict accused. Though accused had preferred appeal, Appellate Court without proper

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:44351 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

consideration dismissed same. Against concurrent erroneous decisions, revision petition was filed.

¶36

It was contented that even as per complaint, at

¶37

time of alleged lending, complainant was student, which would cast serious doubt about her capacity to have lent sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to accused and there was no explanation about said aspect. It was submitted that complainant had acted as Benami on behalf of her father and filed complaint which was untenable. It was further submitted, sum of Rs.15,00,000/repaid by accused was not accounted for and without any stipulation sought to be adjusted towards interest payable. On said ground sought for allowing revision petition.

¶38

On other hand, Sri Chandra Shekara K., learned counsel for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, both Courts had concurrently appraised themselves of material on record and convicted accused by assigning proper reasons, same could not be disturbed in revision petition.

¶39

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

¶40

judgments and order of sentence and record.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44351 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

From above, it is seen, revision petition is by accused against concurrent findings convicting him for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. , reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , has held scope for interference against concurrent findings in revision petition would be limited to examining whether findings are contrary to statutory provisions or suffer from perversity.

¶44

There is no dispute about compliance with timeline prescribed in Section 138 of NI Act. Main ground of challenge against order of conviction is disputing financial capacity of complainant. To substantiate payment, complainant has produced account statement of her Bank as Ex.P12. ExhibitsP12 (a) and (b) are two transactions indicating remission of Rs.25,00,000/- each from account of complainant to accused. Transfer of money is from account to account. Therefore, there would be no gainsay in disputing financial capacity or about legally enforceable debt. Even if complainant had borrowed said money from her father as contented, same would not take matter out of purview of Section 138 of NI Act.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44351 CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Insofar as last contention that repayment of Rs.15,00,000/- was not accounted for, perusal of cheque in question would indicate that it is for sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Exhibit-P4 - demand notice and corrigendum notice at Ex.P8 would indicate that demand is for cheque amount. Therefore, there would be no material or technical inconsistencies so as to invalidate conviction. Perusal of cross-examination of PW.1 would not indicate any such suggestion. Therefore, none of grounds would carry any substance. Hence, revision petition is

¶48

dismissed .

¶49

In view of dismissal of revision petition, I.A.no.1/2025 does not arise for consideration and same stands disposed of.

¶50

Registry is directed to remit Trial Court Records back forthwith.

¶51

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶52

GRD

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Mr. Keshav Daga v. Miss. Nilisha Maheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Keshav Daga v. Miss. Nilisha Maheshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Chandra Vs Praveen Kumar K

M/S Jaya Engineering Works Vs Sri Nagaraj @ Nagarajan

Sri Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka by

State of Karnataka Vs Ananda

Sri. Keshav G Vs Smt. Kala v

Basha @ Khaleel Basha Vs the State of Karnataka