K. Selvaraju Vs M Shekar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

K. Selvaraju Vs M Shekar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant's appeal under Section 372 CrPC seeking enhancement of the fine/compensation amount, filed directly in the High Court without approaching the Sessions Court, is maintainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The complainant's appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount is per se not maintainable, since the Trial Magistrate's order was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the accused, without any appeal or revision before the First Appellate Court.

Ratio / Principle

The reasons assigned in the affidavit of the wife of the accused are hardly sufficient to condone the huge delay of 322 days.

Key takeaways

Taking into account the concurrent findings of the Trial Magistrate and the First Appellate Court, the absence of defence evidence, and the unrebutted presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no useful purpose would be served by condoning the delay and entertaining the revision petition on merits.ratio¶¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Crl.A No. 20 of 2024 (K. Selvaraju, complainant v. M Shekar, accused) c/w Crl.RP No. 652 of 2023 (M Shekar v. K. Selvaraju), High Court of Karnataka, V Srishananda J, 04.03.2026. (1) The complainant's appeal under S. 372 CrPC praying for enhancement of the fine from Rs. 5,75,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- imposed in C.C.No.912/2015 (JMFC III Court, Davanagere, 27.06.2017) as confirmed in Crl.A.No.73/2017 (II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, 14.09.2021) was dismissed as per se not maintainable, the Trial Magistrate's order having been confirmed by the First Appellate Court without any appeal or revision before it. (2) The accused's revision petition under Ss. 397/401 CrPC, filed with a delay of 322 days, was rejected: I.A.No.2 of 2023 for condonation of delay was rejected because the affidavit of the accused's wife gave hardly sufficient reasons, and, given the concurrent findings of the courts below, the absence of defence evidence and the unrebutted presumption under S. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no useful purpose would be served by condoning the delay and entertaining the revision on merits.

NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 652 OF 2023

IN CRL.A No. 20/2024:

BETWEEN:

K. SELVARAJU S/O KUPPASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO.1174/1, BEHIND B.D.O. OFFICE, BETHUR RAOD, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M SHEKAR Digitally signed S/O MUTHUDEVA, by AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SHARADAVANI R/O PROPRIETOR SUDHIKSHA MOBILE B SERVICE CENTRE, OPP. BUS-STAND, Location: HIGH HONNALI, HONNALI TALUQ, COURT OF DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001. KARNATAKA

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 372 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT JMFC THIRD

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023

HC-KAR

COURT AT DAVANAGERE IN C.C.NO.912/2015 DATED 27.06.2017 BY ENHANCE THE CONVICTION OF SENTENCE AND FINE AMOUNT FROM RS.5,75,000/- TO RS.8,00,000/- BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND PASS ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER/S DEEMS FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ETC.,

IN CRL.RP NO. 652/2023:

BETWEEN:

SRI. M SHEKAR S/O MUTTUDEV AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: MOBILE SERVICE CENTRE R/AT BUS STAND, HONNALI TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577217.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. K SELVARAJU S/O P KUPPUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO 1174/1, BEHIND BDO OFFICE, BETHUR ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 004.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 27.06.2017 MADE IN C.C.NO.912/2015 BY THE J.M.F.C. -

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023

HC-KAR

III COURT, DAVANAGERE AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.09.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.73/2017 BY THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ACQUIT HIM OF THE OFFENCE WITH WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURTS BELOW, ETC.,

THIS APPEAL ALONG WITH REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

In Crl.A.No.20 of 2024:

Heard Sri.Halli Shantappa Basappa, learned counsel

for the appellant.

Appellant is the complainant seeking

enhancement of the fine amount without approaching the Sessions Court.

Since the order of the Trial Magistrate is confirmed by the First Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the accused, without there being any appeal or the

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023

HC-KAR

revision before the First Appellate Court, filing an appeal before this Court by the complainant, that too seeking the enhancement of the compensation amount is per-se not maintainable.

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as not

maintainable.

In Crl.R.P.No.652 of 2023:

Sri.Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel appearing for

the revision petitioner and Sri.Halli Shantappa Basappa, learned counsel for the respondent.

Accused is the revision petitioner who has

challenged the order of conviction in CC No. 912 of 2015, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.73 by 2017 with a delay of 322 days.

I.A.No.2 of 2023 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 322 days.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13366 CRL.A No. 20 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 652 of 2023

HC-KAR

The reasons assigned in the affidavit of the wife

of the accused are hardly sufficient to condone the huge delay.

Taking note of the fact that the concurrent finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate as well as the First Appellate Court, also taking note of the fact that there was no defence evidence and the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose could be served by condoning the delay and entertaining the revision petition on merits.

Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is rejected.

Consequently, revision petition is also rejected.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13