Dismissed¶54

Rajkumar v. Basavaraja

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2025CRL.RP/1458/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.138 NI Act cheque dishonour; insufficient funds; legally recoverable debt; cheque issued as security to third party (Kashinath, finance company); proof of signature by Bank Manager P.W.2; Ex.P1; concurrent findings of trial court and appellate court; scope of revision under Ss.397/401 Cr.P.C.; perversity; K. Ravi v. State of T.N. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460; CRL.RP No.1458 of 2018; High Court of Karnataka; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's signature on the cheque (Ex.P1) was proved: the Bank Manager, examined as P.W.2, confirmed the signature on the cheque tallied with the accused's signature in bank records, notwithstanding the accused's denial. ¶47

Rajkumar Vs Basavaraja — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether there existed a legally recoverable debt/liability supporting the cheque, given the accused's plea that the cheque was issued to Kashinath, running a finance company, as security and that no amount was borrowed from the complainant. +3 more

¶44

Court's answer

The accused's own contention that the cheques were issued to Kashinath as security would admit his signature on the cheque.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

¶47

Key takeaways

The accused neither examined Kashinath nor produced any material to substantiate his transactional relationship with Kashinath or the issuance of the cheque to him; therefore his contention that the findings of both Courts suffered from perversity on that count does not hold water.ratio¶48
The dismissal of the other prosecution instituted by Kashinath against the accused does not aid him, as it arose from some other cheque, and in any event that judgment was not made part of the present record.ratio¶49
The findings of both Courts are based on material on record and arrived at after due reasoning; applying the scope of revision explained in K. Ravi v. State of T.N. and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the Court found no error or perversity calling for interference, and dismissed the Revision Petition as without merit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. by accused against concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — cheque no.824918 dated 16.03.2016 for Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysore towards alleged hand loan of 11.12.2015 dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds'; demand notice issued and served — defence of denial of signature and that the cheque was issued as security to one Kashinath running a finance company — Bank Manager (P.W.2) proved the signature on Ex.P1 tallied with bank records; the security plea itself admitted the signature; accused did not examine Kashinath nor produce any material of the alleged transaction; dismissal of Kashinath's other cheque case, concerning a different cheque and not on record, afforded no aid — relying on K. Ravi v. State of T.N., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 on the scope of revision confined to perversity or statutory contravention, the High Court found the concurrent findings based on record and duly reasoned, with no error or perversity, and dismissed the Revision Petition.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2018

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAJKUMAR S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O SPANDANA NILAYA, VINAYAKA NAGARA, SHIKARIPURA - 577 427. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. N.G. PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

BASAVARAJA

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

S/O S SHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, LIC ADVISOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O CHANNAKESHAVA NAGARA, SHIKARIPURA TOWN/TALUK - 577 427. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.11.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.53/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

A AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 04.06.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SHIKARIPURA IN C.C.NO.225/2017 (C.C.NO.416/2016) AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging judgment dated 02.11.2018 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, in Crl.A.no.53/2018 and also to set aside judgment and sentence dated 04.06.2018 passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shikaripura, Shivamogga District in C.C.no.225/2017, this Revision Petition is filed.

¶26

Sri N.G.Parameshwarappa, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent (complainant) filed a Private Complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against petitioner (accused) alleging that he was very well acquainted with accused since 2004. Therefore, on 11.12.2015, when accused asked him for hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- for business purposes, he lent it based on assurance that his wife had invested huge amount of money in 'Shrinidhi Associates', which

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

was likely to be settled within one month and immediately accused would repay hand loan.

¶31

But, after three months, when he demanded repayment, accused issued cheque no.824918 dated 16.03.2016 drawn on State Bank of Mysore for Rs.3,50,000/-. Said cheque when presented for collection was returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Thereafter even when registered demand notice was issued to accused on 06.04.2016 and served on 12.04.2016, accused failed to return amount thereby giving rise to cause of action for prosecution for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ' ACT ').

¶32

On service of summons, accused appeared and pleaded to be tried. Complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. Apart from complainant, Bank Manager was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.C1 and C2 were marked. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused denied all incriminating

¶33

material/circumstances. He examined himself as D.W.1, but did not mark any documents. It was submitted though accused

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

had urged substantial defences such as denying his signature on cheque, absence of legally recoverable debt between complainant and accused, cheques were issued as security to one Kashinath, who was running a Finance Company and on ground that one more cheque bounce case filed by Kashinath against accused had ended in dismissal etc. It was submitted, trial Court without proper appreciation of material on record, convicted accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.3,80,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved, accused had preferred Criminal Appeal urging various grounds reiterating his contentions. However, without appreciation, appeal was dismissed leading to this Revision.

¶37

Learned counsel, firstly, submitted there was no proof of legally recoverable debt. Accused had not borrowed any amount from complainant, in fact, accused had issued 9 cheques to Kashinath, as security for amount borrowed. Complainant had obtained one cheque from Kashinath and filed present case without any transactional relationship. Hence, on above grounds, impugned orders were required to be set aside.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

It was submitted, in fact, similar prosecution by Kashinath against accused, in respect of another cheque, had ended in dismissal substantiating petitioner's defence. On said ground, sought for allowing Revision Petition.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶42

respondent. Perused material available on record.

¶43

From above, it is seen this Revision Petition is by accused against concurrent findings. Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ravi v. State of T.N. , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2283 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, explained scope of Revision Petition under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. and held it to be normally confined to findings, suffering from perversity or being contrary to provisions of Statute.

¶44

Main grounds urged by petitioner are non-existence of legally recoverable debt, as cheque in question was issued to Kashinath, running a Finance Company, denying his signature on cheque and about dismissal of another case filed by Kashinath against him.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40644 CRL.RP No. 1458 of 2018

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court observed particulars of transaction between complainant and accused i.e., for borrowing a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from complainant on 11.12.20215 and issuing of cheque in question for repayment thereof. Though, accused denied signature, Bank Manager, examined as P.W.2 confirmed signature of accused on Ex.P1 - cheque tallied with his signature in Bank records.

¶48

Apart from same, contention of accused that cheques were issued to Kashinath as security would admit his signature on cheque. Strangely to substantiate his contention, accused has not examined Kashinath or produced any material to substantiate his transactional relationship with Kashinath and about issuance of cheque to him. Therefore, petitioner's contention that finding of both Courts suffered from perversity on said count would not hold any water.

¶49

Insofar as other case filed by Kashinath against accused herein being dismissed, same would not come to aid of accused as cause of action was on some other cheque. In any case, said judgment is not made part of present record.

¶50