Sri Shashank K Vs M/S Canfin Homes Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Shashank K Vs M/S Canfin Homes Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; revision petition dismissed and the concurrent convictions/orders of the courts below left undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused's plea that cheque no.000012 was issued only as security for payment of EMIs could dislodge the statutory presumptions available to the complainant under the NI Act. +3 more

Court's answer

Courts have time and again observed that there is no separate classification amongst cheques as 'security cheques'; a bare contention that the cheque was a security cheque does not upset the presumptions under the NI Act.

Ratio / Principle

On the contrary, the 'security cheque' defence admits a financial transaction between complainant and accused, i.e., a relationship of creditor and debtor, thereby attracting the presumption under Section 139 NI Act that the cheque was issued towards repayment of a legally recoverable debt.

Key takeaways

Though rebuttable by setting up a probable defence, the presumption cannot be rebutted on the basis of every possible probability but only one appearing reasonable on the standards of a normal prudent man; both Courts below found no other material to substantiate the security-cheque contention and nothing material was elicited in cross-examination of the complainant, so its rejection was in accordance with law.ratio¶9
Once obtaining of the financial assistance is admitted, the liability to repay subsists regardless of any dispute with regard to title to, or possession of, the apartment purchased with the loan.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138, 139 – Criminal revision against concurrent convictions – Accuser's pleas rejected: (i) cheque issued as 'security': held there is no separate classification of cheques as 'security cheques'; a bare such plea does not upset the NI Act presumptions, and in fact admits the creditor–debtor relationship, attracting the Section 139 presumption that the cheque was issued towards repayment of a legally recoverable debt; rebuttal requires a probable defence that appears reasonable to a normal prudent man, not every possible probability, and both courts below found no material nor anything in cross-examination to substantiate it; (ii) dispute over title to and non-possession of the flat purchased with the admitted financial assistance does not extinguish the liability to repay; (iii) separate proceedings by the complainant on another cheque (no.000009) for Rs.1,08,94,370/- afford no ground here, the accused being at best entitled to urge that contention in those proceedings; both courts below had given reasoned findings on the record. Revision petition dismissed.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44655 CRL.RP No. 915 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 915 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHASHANK .K S/O KASHINATH .K.R AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO. 16, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MAHENDRA .G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S CANFIN HOMES LIMITED, HAVING CORPORATED OFFICE AT NO. 29/1, 2^ND FLOOR, M N KRISHNA RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANGER

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 29/1, 1^ST FLOOR, M N KRISHNA RAO ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY .D, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.244/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-64) AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2021 IN CC.NO.6864/2016 BY THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND ACMM COURT, AT BENGALURU (SCCH-26).

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44655 CRL.RP No. 915 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging order dated 21.06.2023 passed by LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.244/2021 confirming order dated 24.02.2021 passed by XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT & ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.6864/2016, this revision petition is filed.

Sri G Mahendra, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, petition was against concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) was a registered Company carrying on business in housing finance. It filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused had obtained financial assistance in a sum of Rs.26,87,000/- for purchase of flat at Polaryk Enclave on EMI of Rs.28,456/-. It was further alleged that accused had Rs.17,0736/- as overdue amount and therefore, on 28.08.2015 complainant got issued demand notice. On receipt, accused approached complainant and issued cheque no.000012 dated

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44655 CRL.RP No. 915 of 2025

HC-KAR

07.10.2015 for Rs.28,54,726/- drawn on HDFC bank ltd., Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection, returned with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 08.10.2015. And even when complainant got issued demand notice dated 03.11.2015 served on accused on 06.11.2015, accused had failed to discharge liability and thereby committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short).

It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied allegations and sought trial. Complainant examined its Chief Manager as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P11. On appraisal of incriminating material, which was denied, statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D.4.

It was submitted, main contentions of accused before trial Court were, firstly, cheque in question was submitted as security for payment of EMI. Secondly, loan was taken for purchase of flat in name of accused. However, it was later found that said flat was riddled in litigation with several persons staking claim over it, as a result of which he was not in

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44655 CRL.RP No. 915 of 2025

HC-KAR

possession. It was submitted, even Rs.16,00,000/- remitted by petitioner was not accounted for. And without mentioning about above proceedings, complainant had initiated separate proceedings on cheque no.000009 for Rs.1,08,94,370/-, which was fraudulent in nature. It was submitted, both Courts had failed to appreciate same. Therefore, impugned judgments called for interference.

ON other hand, Sri Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for respondent opposed petition.

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

record.

This revision petition is by accused against concurrent finding of conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, on specific grounds.

Insofar as first contention that cheque was given as security, Courts have time and again observed that there was no separate classification amongst cheques as 'security cheques' and bare contention as such would not upset presumptions under NI Act. On other hand, such defence would

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44655 CRL.RP No. 915 of 2025

HC-KAR

admit financial transaction between complainant and accused i.e., relationship of creditor and debtor, thereby attracting presumption under Section 139 of NI Act that cheque was issued towards repayment of legally recoverable debt.

Though, said presumption is rebuttable by setting up probable defence, it cannot be so on basis of every possible probability, but one that appears reasonable applying standards of normal prudent man. Both Courts noted that there was no other material to substantiate such contention and nothing material was elicited during cross-examination of complainant. Therefore rejection of such contention would be in accordance with law.

Second contention that, Apartment for which loan obtained, was in litigation and accused was not in possession is noted only to be rejected. When obtaining financial assistance, is admitted, liability to repay would subsist regardless of any dispute with regard to title.

Even next contention that complainant had initiated proceedings for recovery of another sum of Rs.1,08,94,370/-, which was also stated to be part of same loan, would not hold

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44655 CRL.RP No. 915 of 2025

HC-KAR

much water, as accused would at best be entitled to raise such contention in said matter by establishing that claim herein was for entire dues.

Thus, none of contentions urged are sufficient to upset presumption available to complainant. It is seen that while passing impugned judgments, both Courts have referred to contentions urged and arrived at reasoned finding by reference to material on record.

Hence, no grounds to interfere. Revision petition is

dismissed .

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

Psg List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32