Sri Vinay Kumar C Vs Sri Arun Kumar M N

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51934 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1595 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VINAY KUMAR C S/O CHANDRA SHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARIGOWDA LAYOUT, BHABURAYANA KOPPALU VILLAGE, K. SHETTIHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATANA, MANDYA DISTRICT-574138.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI ARUN KUMAR M N S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT M. SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE, K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 807. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.B. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 29.05.2023 IN C.C.NO.727/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRIRANGAPATNA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT, AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2023 PASSED IN CRL.APL. NO.5029 OF 2023, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA).

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:51934 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2023

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

Challenging judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.no.5029/2023 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Srirangapatna, in C.C.no.727/2020, this revision petition is filed.

¶20

Sri K. Shridhara, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that instant proceedings were initiated on a private complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (' CrPC ', for short) alleging that accused was well known to him and on 18.12.2019 had borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- as hand loan for his legal necessities, assuring to repay it within period of three months and after lapse of said period and on demand, same day accused issued post dated cheque bearing no.392034 dated 18.03.2020 drawn on ICICI Bank, V.V. Mohalla, Mysuru Branch, Mysuru for Rs.3,50,000/- towards discharge of loan

¶21

3 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:51934 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

amount, which when presented for collection on 19.03.2020, returned dishonoured with endorsement 'Account Closed' on 20.03.2020 and thereafter when complainant intimated same to accused, he had instructed for re-presentation. But, even on re-presentation on 16.05.2020, cheque was dishonoured and returned endorsement with same reason on 18.05.2020 and thereafter when demand notice dated 05.06.2020 got issued by complainant returned with endorsement 'Party not available' on 24.06.2020 and accused had failed to repay amount within time stipulated, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (' NI Act ', for short).

¶25

On appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Whereupon, complainant deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. On explanation of incriminating material, accused denied same as false which was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of CrPC.

¶26

It was submitted, accused had taken substantial contention that when dishonour of cheque was due to 'account closed' representation of cheque would not be justified and

¶27

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51934 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

same would not attract Section 138 of NI Act. But, trial Court proceeded to convict accused, contrary to ratio laid down by this Court in case of Sri H. Nanjundappa Since deceased by

¶30

his Legal Representative his daughter and Anr. v. H. Hanumantharayappa , reported in ILR 2007 KAR 2706 , wherein it is held when dishonour of cheque is on ground of account being closed, question of successive presentation of cheque would make no sense and complainant ought to have filed complaint based on first dishonour and failure would result in acquittal. It was further submitted that even appeal filed against said judgment was dismissed without proper consideration. Therefore, sought for allowing revision petition.

¶31

On other hand, Sri G.B. Manjunatha, learned counsel for complainant opposed revision petition. It was submitted, question whether dishonour of cheque on ground of account being closed would fall within Section 138 of NI Act was answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NEPC Micon Ltd. and Ors. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. , reported in 1999 Crl.L.J 2883 and therefore, there was no merit in revision petition and sought for dismissal..

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51934 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned

¶35

judgments and record.

¶36

From above, it is seen that this revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent findings, convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, alleging perversity of finding on sole ground that complaint was filed based on cause of action in pursuance of successive re-presentation of cheque in question, when reason for dishonour was account closed on both instances. In view of contention, only question that would require to be answered is whether on account of successive re-presentation of cheque, when cheque was dishonoured on ground of account being closed, conviction of accused would be contrary to law.

¶37

Perusal of judgment in NEPC Micon Ltds' case (supra), would indicate that Hon'ble Supreme Court therein was considering whether dishonour of cheque on ground of account being closed would give rise to cause of action for initiation of action under Section 138 of NI Act. Same was answered in affirmative.

¶38

6 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:51934 CRL.RP No. 1595 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

It is seen that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan and Anr. , reported in 2013 (1) SCC 177 , has held there would be no bar against successive re-presentation within period of validity of cheque. Combined reading of ratio laid down would render finding of trial court and Appellate Court in instant case would be in accordance with law. No ground of perversity is made out, revision petition is without merit and stands dismissed .

¶42

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶43

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri Vinay Kumar C v. Sri Arun Kumar M N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vinay Kumar C v. Sri Arun Kumar M N

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

Shivareddy Vs Narayana Reddy

Smt Sushma Dhwarakanath Vs Smt K N Jayalakshmi

K Balasubramaniam Vs Pratap Singh

State of Karnataka Vs H.N Prabhakar

Sri D Anbu Rose Vs Sri Krishnan

Mr Vincent D Costa Vs Mr Anil Mantal