Dismissed¶63

Smt T Lalitha v. Smt Prasanna Kumari

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2025CRL.RP/1431/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (Ravi V Hosmani, J., 17-12-2025) in CRL.RP No.1431 of 2018: criminal revision against concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act dismissed; plea that cheque was issued as security for a chit transaction rejected for want of material; presumptions under Sections 118/139 NI Act upheld; Vishnoo Mittal (2025 INSC 346), Bijoy Kumar Moni (2024 INSC 1024) and Sri Sai Sapthagiri Sponge (2025:DHC:9362) distinguished; cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed payable to High Court Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; conviction and sentence under Section 138 N.I. Act upheld; cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed on the petitioner. ¶63

Smt T Lalitha Vs Smt Prasanna Kumari — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; conviction and sentence under Section 138 N.I. Act upheld; cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed on the petitioner.

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent judgments convicting the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act suffered from perversity and called for interference in revision. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

There was no dispute or challenge regarding conformity with the timeline for presentation of the cheque, issuance of the demand notice and filing of the private complaint; the Trial Court had taken note of the pleadings, contents of the demand notice and the deposition of P.W.1 on foundational facts.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

In cross-examination an admission was elicited that Ex.P-1 belonged to the accused and bore her signature (Ex.P-1(a)).

¶57

Key takeaways

The contention that Ex.P-1 was issued as security for a chit transaction was not substantiated by any material; neither the introducer Tulsibai nor any other chit member was examined; mere making of suggestions which are denied is insufficient to upset the presumptions under the N.I. Act, the benefit of Sections 118 and 139 being available to the complainant.ratio¶57
The decisions relied upon by the petitioner (Vishnoo Mittal; Bijoy Kumar Moni; Sri Sai Sapthagiri Sponge) were distinguishable on facts — in Sri Sai Sapthagiri Sponge the quashing rested on specific material that the cheques were issued at the time of execution of an MOU before the debt was incurred — and reliance without parity of facts or legal proposition would be in vain.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. by the accused against concurrent judgments convicting her for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (C.C.No.9945/2014, confirmed in Crl.A.No.300/2016). Defence that the cheque (Ex.P-1) was issued only as security for a chit transaction failed: admission elicited that the cheque bore the accused's signature; no material substantiated the security plea; neither the introducer Tulsibai nor any chit member was examined; mere denied suggestions cannot upset the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. Precedents relied on by the accused — Vishnoo Mittal v. M/s.Shakti Trading Company (2025 INSC 346), Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna (2024 INSC 1024) and Sri Sai Sapthagiri Sponge (2025:DHC:9362) — held distinguishable on facts; in the last case quashing rested on specific material that cheques were issued at execution of an MOU before the debt was incurred. No dispute on timelines of presentation of cheque, demand notice and filing of complaint. Revision Petition dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:53953 CRL.RP No. 1431 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1431 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. T. LALITHA

¶8

W/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C

¶9

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.19, 3RD CROSS, MAHATMA GNADHI ROAD (BRIDGE ROAD)

¶10

BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR

¶11

K.P. AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD

¶12

BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. VENKATARAM C.R, ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONER

AND:

SMT. PRASANNA KUMARI

W/O SRI. GIRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:53953 CRL.RP No. 1431 of 2018

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

RESIDING AT NO.2, 2ND CROSS,

¶23

LEFT SIDE, MANJUNATHA NAGAR

¶24

BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶27

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THIS REVISION PETITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.10.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-61), BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.A.NO.300/2016 ON HIS FILE UPHOLDING THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE IN C.C.NO.9945/2014 ON 05.02.2016 AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF N.I.ACT AND EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.02.2016 IMPUGNED HEREIN BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED REVISION PETITION.(b) ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCE P/U/S.138 OF N.I.ACT.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:53953 CRL.RP No. 1431 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Challenging judgment dated 05.02.2016 passed by XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C.no.9945/2014, confirmed in judgment dated 03.10.2017 passed by LX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61), in Crl.A.no.300/2016, this Revision Petition is filed.

¶35

Sri C.R.Venkataram, learned counsel for petitioner submits under concurrent erroneous judgments petitioner was committed for punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (' N.I. Act' ).

¶36

It is submitted that impugned proceedings arose out of private complaint filed by respondent - complainant alleging that accused was his friend, approached him for hand loan in month of January 2013. In pursuance of same, complainant had lent Rs.3,50,000/- as hand loan in January 2013, which was agreed to be repaid by end of June, 2013. Despite request, after lapse of said period, payment was not made. However, accused had issued cheque for repayment which was returned with endorsement ' Insufficiency of Funds '

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53953 CRL.RP No. 1431 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

on 29.11.2013 and even though a demand notice was got issued by complainant by RPAD as well as through courier, notice issued by RPAD returned with postal shara ' Door Locked ', while notice sent through courier was served and accused failed to make payment within time permissible and on other hand, issued untenable reply on 30.12.2013 and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶40

It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter complainant got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. Incriminating material was explained to accused and statement denying same was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused led defence evidence by examining herself as D.W.1. No documents were marked.

¶41

It was submitted though accused had put up substantial defence denying issuance of cheque was towards legally enforceable debt and contending that cheque was, in fact, issued as a security for chit transaction was substantiated in cross-examination of complainant. Trial Court failed to properly appreciate material on record, convicted accused and

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53953 CRL.RP No. 1431 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

even appeal filed against same was dismissed without proper re-appreciation thereby leading to this Revision Petition. It was submitted impugned judgments suffered from perversity and call for interference. On said ground, sought for allowing Revision Petition.

¶45

In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnoo Mittal v. M/s.Shakti Trading Company reported in 2025 INSC 346, Bijoy Kumar Moni v. Paresh Manna and Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 1024 and decision of High Court of Delhi in case of Sri Sai Sapthagiri Sponge Pvt. Ltd. v. The State (GNCT of Delhi) and Another reported in 2025:DHC:9362 and sought for allowing Revision Petition.

¶46

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and records.

¶47

This Revision Petition is by accused challenging concurrent judgment convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Main ground of challenge is perversity of finding that issuance of cheque was for discharge

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53953 CRL.RP No. 1431 of 2018

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

of being legally enforceable debt and contending that cheques were issued for security purpose.

¶51

While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court took note of pleadings, contents of demand notice as well as deposition of P.W.1 about foundational facts. There is no dispute or challenge about conformity with timeline for presentation of cheque, issuance of demand notice and filing of private complaint. It noticed that complainant produced cheque, bank endorsement, demand notice, postal acknowledgments, reply and complaint as Exs.P-1 to P-11.

¶52

In cross-examination, one of defence taken was about issuance of cheque as security. Based on same, Trial Court held, benefit of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act, would be available to complainant. Suggestion made about issuance of cheque towards Chit transaction as security are denied.

¶53

In her deposition, DW-1 stated that one Tulsibai had introduced complainant, who was carrying on chit business and accused had subscribed to a chit which concluded in November

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53953 CRL.RP No. 1431 of 2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

2012 and at time of payment of chit amount, complainant had collected cheque as security for receipt of chit amount.

¶57

But in cross-examination, an admission is elicited about Ex.P-1 belonging to accused and her signature on it as Ex.P-1(a). Though contention is taken that Ex.P-1 was issued as a security for chit transaction, no material is produced to substantiate same. Even introducer Tulsibai or any other chit member is examined. It is settled law that mere making of suggestions which are denied would not be sufficient to upset presumptions under N.I.Act.

¶58

Even decisions sought to be relied upon would not be of any assistance as facts in cases of Vishnoo Mittal (supra) and in Bijoy Kumar Moni (supra) , are entirely different. Learned counsel is unable to draw any parallel to present case.

¶59

Indeed in Sri Sai Sapthagiri Sponge Private Limited ( supra ), there is quashing of proceedings on arriving of a conclusion and that cheques in question therein was issued as security. But same is on specific material that cheques were issued at time of execution of MOU before debt having been incurred. Even said decision would render no assistance to

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53953 CRL.RP No. 1431 of 2018

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

petitioner. Reliance on decisions without making out a case of parity on facts or legal proposition would not only be in vain but also an attempt to unnecessary examination by this Court.

¶63

Therefore, Revision Petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) payable to High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

¶64

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶65

HNM/VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK

Smt T Lalitha v. Smt Prasanna Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt T Lalitha v. Smt Prasanna Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Unique Services Min Metals Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Mr. Narayana Vs Mr. Vasantha Kumar

State of Karnataka Vs G R Kumar

Mr Ashish Jhunjhunwala Vs Abb Limited

Smt. H G Gayatri, Vs Smt. Chethana K N.

Mr. N. Manjunath, Vs Mr. Rangaswamy