Partly allowed¶¶64

Sri. M. D. Sampath v. Sri. M. S. Subbegowda

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2025CRL.RP/684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.RP No. 684 of 2022; High Court of Karnataka; Anant Ramanath Hegde J.; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; Sections 397/401 CrPC revision; cheque dishonour; hand loan; settlement cheque Rs.7,75,000/-; fine Rs.8,80,000/-; double cheque amount as maximum fine; default simple imprisonment six months; time to deposit balance fine till 31.12.2025; Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Mudigere C.C.No.292/2019; Family Court Chikkamagaluru Criminal Appeal No.33/2022; conviction upheld; petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence maintained; petitioner permitted to deposit balance fine of Rs.5,52,000/- before 31.12.2025, failing which simple imprisonment for six months; Rs.5,000/- deposited before the Trial Court to be released to the complainant instead of the State Exchequer. ¶¶64

Sri. M. D. Sampath Vs Sri. M. S. Subbegowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the fine of Rs.8,80,000/- imposed by the Trial Court was sustainable, given the contention that the cheque amount of Rs.7,75,000/- included interest and the fine amounted to charging compound interest. +2 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

The law enables the Court to impose fine up to double the cheque amount, and fine equal to double the cheque amount is the maximum fine the Court can impose.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

The legally enforceable debt of Rs.7,75,000/- stands established, as the accused himself issued the cheque for that amount pursuant to the settlement and agreed to repay it to the complainant.

¶¶48

Key takeaways

Even assuming the cheque amount of Rs.7,75,000/- was inclusive of interest, it remains less than double the original cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- issued in 2015; hence the contention that the fine was excessive finds no merit.ratio¶¶54
The Court finds no merit in the accused's submissions and no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC.ratio¶¶55
Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner/accused is permitted to deposit the balance fine amount of Rs.5,52,000/- before 31.12.2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (S.397 r/w S.401 CrPC) against concurrent conviction under S.138 NI Act — cheque for Rs.7,75,000/- issued in 2018 pursuant to settlement in earlier C.C.710/2015 (which arose from dishonour of a 2015 cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- towards a hand loan) stood dishonoured — Trial Court convicted and fined Rs.8,80,000/- with six months' simple imprisonment in default; Appellate Court affirmed with Rs.5,000/- cost — Held: fine equal to double the cheque amount is the maximum the Court can impose; even assuming the settlement cheque of Rs.7,75,000/- included interest, it is less than double the original cheque of Rs.5,00,000/-, so no merit in the plea that the fine charged compound interest; legally enforceable debt of Rs.7,75,000/- established as the accused himself issued and agreed to repay that cheque; no reason to interfere with conviction and sentence — petitioner permitted to deposit balance fine of Rs.5,52,000/- before 31.12.2025, failing which six months' simple imprisonment — Rs.5,000/- deposited (earlier earmarked for the State) released to the complainant — petition allowed in part.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38215 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 684 OF 2022 IN CRL.RP NO. 684/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M. D. SAMPATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE DAKAPPAGOWDA, BUSINESSMAN, M/S. MSD ENTERPRISES, R/AT MUGRAVALLI, HALEKOTE VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI, POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 132.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. N.R. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. M. S. SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE M.K. SHESHEGOWDA, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT HALEMUDIGERE, MUDIGERE VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 132.

¶13

...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GANGAN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NEERAJ RAJIV SHIVAM, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38215 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2022

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ) AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.33/2022 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MUDIGERE, IN C.C.NO.292/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE CHARGES WITH WHICH THEY STOOD CHARGE.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding in a proceeding for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused is convicted.

¶21

Respondent/complainant lodged a private complaint alleging dishonour of cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- issued by the petitioner/accused on the premise that hand loan advanced to the petitioner is not repaid and the cheque issued towards discharge of the said hand loan was dishonoured.

¶22

The complaint states that initially the accused had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque bearing No.001817 for Rs.5,00,000/- towards discharge

¶23

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:38215 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2022

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

of the debt. The said cheque dated 20.04.2015 was dishonoured and the complainant initiated proceedings in C.C. No.710/2015 and said proceedings ended in a settlement where the accused agreed to pay Rs.7,75,000/- towards the amount due to the complainant and issued one more cheque and the said cheque is dishonoured.

¶27

The petitioner/accused contested the matter. The

¶28

Trial Court concluded that the transaction alleged by the complainant is established and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.8,80,000/-. Out of the fine amount, Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be paid to the State towards the expenses and Rs.8,75,000/is ordered to be paid to the complainant. In the event of default to pay the fine amount, the petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

¶29

The petitioner/accused filed the appeal and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and imposed a cost of

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:38215 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Rs.5,000/- towards the complainant. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner/accused.

¶34

The parties to the proceedings are referred to as per the designation before the Trial Court.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the oral evidence adduced by the parties have not been considered in a proper perspective. The valid defence raised by the accused while cross-examining the complainant is not properly appreciated.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court could not have imposed the penalty of Rs.8,80,000/- given the fact that the cheque for Rs.7,75,000/also included the interest component which the accused had agreed and the Trial Court could not have imposed a penalty of Rs.8,80,000/- which amounts to charging compound interest. In addition to that it is also urged that the simple imprisonment of six months in the event of default is also disproportionate to the amount involved in the cheque.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:38215 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

It is also urged that the Trial Court could have

¶41

imposed a fine of Rs.7,75,000/- as the cheque amount included the interest.

¶42

Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that Rs.7,75,000/- was agreed to be paid in the year 2018 and that cheque was issued in terms of the settlement arrived at in a proceeding C.C. 710/2015, which was initiated on account of dishonour of cheque for Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus he would urge that the amount which was sought to be repaid to the complainant is the amount payable in the year 2015. Thus he would contend that the penalty of Rs.8,80,000/- imposed by the Trial Court is on the lower side. The law enables the Court to impose the double cheque amount as fine and as the fine amount of Rs.8,80,000/- is less than the twice original cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the contention that the Trial Court could not have imposed a fine amount of Rs.8,80,000/- is not available. Thus it is urged to dismiss the petition.

¶43

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:38215 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

It is not in dispute that in the year 2015 the cheque

¶48

issued by the accused for Rs.5,00,000/- was dishonoured and thereafter, a complaint is lodged by the complainant which was registered as C.C.710/2015. In the said proceedings, there was a settlement before the Court and the accused agreed to pay Rs.7,75,000/- towards discharge of full and final claim of the complainant. The said cheque issued with regard to the settlement was dishonoured. Thus the legally enforceable debt of Rs.7,75,000/- is very much established as the accused himself has issued a cheque for Rs.7,75,000/- and agreed to repay the said amount to the complainant.

¶49

The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the

¶50

accused to pay a fine of Rs.8,80,000/-. There is no dispute that the law enables the Court to impose the fine that is double the cheque amount. Fine amount equal to double the cheque amount is the maximum fine that the Court can impose. It is noticed that the complainant has issued the cheque for Rs.7,75,000/- in the year 2018, which according to the accused is also inclusive of the interest amount payable by the accused. As already noticed, the earlier cheque was issued in the year 2015.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:38215 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Under these circumstances, assuming that the amount of Rs.7,75,000/- is also inclusive of the interest, still it is less than the double the cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/which was issued in the year 2015.

¶55

Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the accused. The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶56

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the fine amount immediately. It is also noticed that the petitioner has deposited 40% of the fine amount and he is required to deposit 60% of the fine amount, i.e., Rs.5,28,000/-.

¶57

Considering the peculiar facts of this case, this Court permits the petitioner/accused to deposit the balance fine amount of Rs.5,52,000/- before 31.12.2025.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:38215 CRL.RP No. 684 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

In case the said amount is not deposited, petitioner

¶62

shall undergo a simple imprisonment of six months.

¶63

The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited before the Trial Court, which is ordered to be paid to the State Exchequer shall be released in favour of the complainant/respondent.

¶64

Petition is allowed in part as aforesaid.

¶65

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶66

CHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0

Sri. M. D. Sampath v. Sri. M. S. Subbegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. D. Sampath v. Sri. M. S. Subbegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M R Subba Rao Vs the Board of Directors and the Appellate Authority

Naushad Vs Mahaboob Pasha

Sri.B.S Mukund Vs Smt.B.M.Rohini

Sri Lohith M.S Vs Sri Krishna K .C

Pradeep Kumar Vs Rajath

Smt Kumudavathi Vs Smt Lakshmi