Mrs Deepa Vs Mrs Rajalaxmi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mrs Deepa Vs Mrs Rajalaxmi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to petitioner; respondent-complainant given liberty to withdraw any amount deposited by petitioner-accused.

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings convicting the accused for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act were erroneous/perverse and called for interference in revision. +3 more

Court's answer

As observed by the Trial Court, there was admission of issuance of the cheque, of the signature on it and of its handing over to the complainant, as well as admission of loan borrowal.

Ratio / Principle

Omission of dates/particulars of lending in demand notice Ex.P3 was not fatal: accused's own reply notice Ex.D3 clearly mentioned the dates on which money was paid, the total matching the amount claimed; hence there was no substance in disputing the borrowal.

Key takeaways

The contention that the accused had repaid the loan and only Rs.1,00,000/- was due was unsubstantiated: there was no material to establish it even though the accused entered the witness box, led evidence and produced documents.ratio¶51
Ex.P1 cheque was in the complainant's name and the amount on it matched the total money lent to the accused; this justified extension of the presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act in the complainant's favour, which the accused failed to upset.ratio¶51
Both Courts having extended the presumption and concluded that the accused failed to upset it, their orders of conviction were fully in accordance with law; no ground of perversity was established and the Revision Petition was without merit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 139 — Criminal Revision against concurrent convictions — Dismissed. Demand notice (Ex.P3) omitted dates/particulars of lending, but the accused's written reply (Ex.D3) acknowledged receipt of money mentioning dates whose total matched the amount claimed; the omission therefore caused no substance to the challenge on borrowal. Plea that the loan was largely repaid and only Rs.1,00,000/- remained due was found unsupported by any material, despite the accused entering the witness box and producing documents. With admissions of cheque issuance, signature and handing over, and of borrowal, and the cheque (Ex.P1) being in the complainant's name for an amount matching the total lent, extension of presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act was justified and stood unrebutted. Concurrent findings of the JMFC IX Court, Mangaluru (C.C.No.115/2022) and the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru (Crl.A.No.154/2025) were fully in accordance with law; no perversity established — Revision Petition dismissed; complainant at liberty to withdraw any deposited amount.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1290 OF 2025

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MRS DEEPA AGED 36 YEARS W/O VISHWANATH, R/AT PRATHVI NIVASA, NEAR PUNARURU TEMPLE TALIPADY VILLAGE, KINNIGOLI MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT- 574150

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

MRS. RAJALAXMI AGED 44 YEARS W/O RAMACHANDRA UDUPA R/AT 1-353/1, UDUPA HOUSE, MOODUSHEDDE, THRIRUVAIL VAMANJOOR, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT- 575028

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.08.2025 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 154/2025 ON THE FILE OF III

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025

HC-KAR

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT D.K.. MANGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.02.2025 PASSED IN C.C. NO. 115/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C. IX COURT MANGALURU, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC 138 OF N.I. ACT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER HEREIN FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.02.2025 passed by JMFC IX Court, Mangaluru, D.K., in C.C.no.115/2022 and confirmed in judgment dated 02.08.2025 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.A.no.154/2025, this Revision Petition is filed.

Sri S.Rajashekar, learned counsel for petitioner -

accused submitted that Revision Petition was filed against concurrent erroneous findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025

HC-KAR

1881 ( N.I. ACT ). It was submitted that respondent - complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from complainant on different dates in month of September and November 2021 in cash as accused was facing shortage of funds for completion of construction. It was assured by accused that loan amount would be returned within six months with interest at rate of 1% per month and a promissory note was also executed in favour of complainant. Thereafter further sum of Rs.64,400/- was borrowed at time of house warming ceremony in January 2022 promising that said amount would be repaid within two months. On failure to make repayment, when complainant approached accused, he had issued cheque bearing no.000002 dated 29.08.2022 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bajpe Branch, Mangalore for Rs.8,86,400/- in favour of complainant, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' on 29.08.2022 and thereafter complainant had got issued a demand notice dated 07.09.2022, which was served on accused on 08.09.2022, accused had failed to make repayment or reply

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025

HC-KAR

to notice, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

It was submitted that on appearance accused denied charges and sought trial. Complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Thereafter incriminating material was explained to accused which was denied as false. Thus, her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter accused got examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D13.

It was submitted despite accused having established substantial defence, both Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court without proper consideration had proceeded to convict accused. It was submitted impugned judgments suffered from perversity and called for interference.

It was firstly submitted, complainant had failed to disclose particulars of amounts lent to accused, such as dates on which money was lent, in demand notice. This could cast grave doubt about lending money. It was submitted that complainant had improvised by adopting dates mentioned by accused in reply notice. It was further submitted that accused

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025

HC-KAR

had repaid amount and was due only Rs.1,00,000/-. However, Trial Court had passed order convicting accused and directing him to pay fine amount of Rs.8,86,400/-, which was contrary to record and calls for interference.

It was submitted there was also difference between amount for which promissory note was executed and demand notice. This would cast grave doubt about complainant's version and would be sufficient to upset presumption. On above grounds, sought for interference.

Sri Ajay M.Prabhu, learned counsel for respondent - complainant opposed Revision Petition.

It was submitted both Courts had examined entire material on record and passed a well reasoned findings and there would be no scope for interference in Revision Petition. It was submitted that though there was difference in amount in Ex.P7- Promissory Note and demand notice at Ex.P3, there was sufficient explanation for same, as accused had borrowed further sum of Rs.64,400/- at time of house warming ceremony and same was included at time of issuance of Ex.P1 - cheque. It was further submitted in Ex.P3 - demand notice, complainant

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025

HC-KAR

had stated that borrowal was in months of September to November, 2021, total amount borrowed was stated. In Ex.D3, reply notice, accused had clearly acknowledged receipt of money by mentioning dates on which it was paid. Thus, accused could not take advantage of non-disclosure and same would not be material omission to upset presumption available to complainant.

Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused

certified copies of deposition and exhibits made available for perusal by respondent - complainant.

This Revision Petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Challenge is on ground that findings are perverse. Insofar as first contention about failure to mention date and other particulars of lending money in Ex.P3 notice, it is seen said notice was replied to by accused by issuing Ex.D3. In Ex.D3, accused clearly mentioned dates on which money was paid. Total of same would match amount claimed.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025

HC-KAR

In view of above, there would be no substance in disputing borrowal of money. Though specific contention is taken that accused had repaid loan amount and was due only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, it is seen that there is no material to substantiate said claim, despite accused having entered witness box and led evidence and produced documents. While passing impugned judgment Trial Court has observed that there is admission of issuance of cheque and signature on cheque and its handing over to complainant. There is admission about loan borrowal. Ex.P1-cheque is in name of complainant and amount mentioned on cheque matches total of money lent to accused. This would justify extension of presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act in favour of complainant. Both Courts by extending such presumption and arriving at a conclusion that accused had failed to upset presumption proceeded to pass orders of conviction. Same would be fully in accordance with law and no grounds of perversity is established. Revision Petition is without merit and stands dismissed .

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:49736 CRL.RP No. 1290 of 2025

HC-KAR

In view of dismissal of Revision Petition, in case any

amount is deposited by petitioner - accused, respondent -

complainant would be at liberty to withdraw same.

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16