Dismissed¶48

C P Diwakar v. Sannegowda

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025CRL.RP/508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: S.138 NI Act; S.397 r/w S.401 CrPC; S.438 r/w S.442 BNSS; S.313 CrPC; double cheque amount as fine; discretionary imposition of fine; revisional scope; perversity; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460; compromise decree; 14% interest per annum; O.S.no.169/2015 rendition of accounts; C.C.no.5488/2016; Crl.A.no.106/2022; V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Hassan; V Addl. District and Sessions Court Hassan; C P Diwakar v. Sannegowda; Pavan Putra Resorts; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; Justice Ravi V Hosmani; decided 29.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Imposition of double the cheque amount as fine is provided for by the NI Act but is a matter of discretion. ¶42

C P Diwakar Vs Sannegowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether revisional interference was warranted against the concurrent findings of conviction under S.138 NI Act, the challenge being confined to the imposition of fine of double the cheque amount by the courts below.

¶42

Court's answer

Imposition of double the cheque amount as fine is provided for by the NI Act but is a matter of discretion.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Scope of revision under Section 397 CrPC is confined to findings being perverse or contrary to statutory provisions (as held in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460); no such ground was established in this case.

¶44

Key takeaways

The trial Court's imposition of fine of double the cheque amount rested on its taking note that the litigation had prolonged for six years and the transaction was of the year 2015.ratio¶47
Since payment under the compromise decree (with 14% interest) fell due from 2015 and ten years have lapsed, even a modified sentence of cheque amount with 14% interest would exceed the fine amount ordered by the trial Court; hence the double-cheque-amount fine stands justified.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Ss.397/401 CrPC (Ss.438/442 BNSS) by accused convicted under S.138 NI Act, confined to the quantum of fine — double the cheque amount (Rs.80,55,250/-) — imposed by the V Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hassan in C.C.no.5488/2016 (judgment dated 31.05.2022) and confirmed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Hassan in Crl.A.no.106/2022 (order dated 10.02.2025). The cheque was issued pursuant to a compromise decree in O.S.no.169/2015 obliging repayment with 14% interest. Held, relying on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, that revisional scope is confined to findings being perverse or contrary to statutory provisions; imposition of double cheque amount as fine is discretionary but justified given the six-year litigation, the 2015 transaction, ten years' lapse, and that even cheque amount with 14% interest would exceed the fine; the appellate moderation of sentence was neither perverse nor unlawful. Revision petition dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43142 CRL.RP No. 508 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 508 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

C P DIWAKAR, S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT ANJANEYA KRUPA, DEVAMMA EXTENTION, CHANNAPATNA, HASSSAN - 573 201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRAJWAL B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SANNEGOWDA S/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT AGILE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI PAVAN G.N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 31.05.2022, PASSED BY THE V ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT HASSAN IN C.C.NO.5488/2016 (ANNEXURE-B), B. SET AIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025, PASSED BY THE V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.106/2022 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:43142 CRL.RP No. 508 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging judgment and order dated 10.02.2025 passed by V Addl. District and Sessions Court, Hassan, in Crl.A.no.106/2022 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2022 passed by V Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hassan, in C.C.no.5488/2016, this revision petition is filed.

¶24

Sri Prajwal B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for Sri Vamshi Krishna C., advocate for petitioner submitted revision petition was by accused against concurrent findings of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ( 'NI Act ', for short). It was submitted on an allegation that complainant and accused were partners in "Pavan Putra Resorts" Partnership Firm, wherein they had invested Rs.4,02,26,250/- as capital and due to subsequent differences in partners had led to filing O.S.no.169/2015 by complainant against accused and his brothers for rendition of accounts.

¶25

Said suit ended in compromise on 23.09.2014, whereunder accused had agreed to pay amount invested by complainant in two installments with interest at rate of 14% per annum and issued cheque bearing no.370591 dated

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:43142 CRL.RP No. 508 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

10.06.2016 for Rs.40,22,625/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Hassan, which when presented for collection, returned dishonoured with endorsement payment stopped by drawer on 18.07.2016 and even when complainant got issued demand notice to accused on 08.08.2016, which was duly served, accused failed to reply or comply with demand, giving rise to cause of action for filing private complaint.

¶30

It was submitted on service of summons, accused appeared and denied allegations and sought to be tried. Complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. It was submitted, accused had substantiated his defence in cross-examination and as such on appraisal of incriminating material, denied same which was recorded as his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (' CrPC ', for short).

¶31

It was submitted, trial Court failed to consider facts and circumstances in proper perspective and directed accused to pay twice cheque amount of Rs.80,55,250/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for period of six months. Aggrieved, accused filed Criminal Appeal no.106/2022. In appeal, a specific contention was urged that trial Court was not justified in directing accused to pay double cheque amount especially

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:43142 CRL.RP No. 508 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

when in respect of other cheques issued by accused to complainant, there was direction to pay cheque amount. On said grounds sought for allowing revision petition.

¶36

On other hand, Sri Pavan G.N., learned counsel for respondent opposed petition. It was submitted, main grounds urged in revision petition was against imposition of fine i.e. amount double that off cheque amount. It was submitted, provisions of NI Act clearly provided for same and while passing impugned judgment, trial Court as well as Appellate Court had duly appreciated facts and circumstances and by assigning specific reasons, directed accused to pay double cheque amount.

¶37

Insofar as other cases, it was submitted there was settlement where terms of settlement included direction to pay cheque amount with 14% interest per annum. It was submitted, in case of adoption of said condition, amount payable by accused would be even more than that ordered by both Courts. On said grounds sought for dismissal.

¶38

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and order.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:43142 CRL.RP No. 508 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

At outset, it is seen that this revision petition is filed by accused against concurrent findings of conviction for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Revision is confined only to imposition of double cheque amount as fine. It is not in dispute that provisions of NI Act would provide for imposition of double cheque amount as fine. However said imposition would be a matter of discretion.

¶43

While passing impugned judgment, it is seen, trial Court took note of fact that issuance of cheque was in pursuance of compromise decree, whereunder accused had agreed to repay amount to respondent-complainant with interest at 14% per annum. Said payment was required to be made from year 2015, ten years have lapsed since. Even if scope for modification of sentence to direction for payment of cheque amount with 14% interest is considered, same would clearly exceed fine amount ordered by trial Court.

¶44

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, has held scope of revision under Section 397 of CrPC would be confined to findings being perverse or contrary to statutory provisions. No such ground is established. On other hand, trial Court had taken note of fact that litigation had

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43142 CRL.RP No. 508 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

prolonged for six years and transaction was of year 2015 and found fit to impose fine amount of double cheque amount.

¶48

While passing impugned judgment, even Appellate Court has taken note of duration of litigation and fact that accused would have earned more than fine amount, if amount were kept in fixed deposit, found fit to moderate sentence to double cheque amount. Same can neither stated to be suffering from perversity or being contrary to any statutory provisions. In view of above, no grounds for interference are made out. Revision petition is dismissed .

¶49

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶50

GRD

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

C P Diwakar v. Sannegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C P Diwakar v. Sannegowda

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

Dasegowda Vs the State by Vijayanagar Police

Mr Mohammad Shazil Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Hameed Vs M v Devaprasad

M/S Dwarkish Chitra Vs Mr B v Satya Murthy

Smt. Sudharani Vs Sri. Gangappa

Sri. Mallesha Vs Sri. Ashokkumar.G