Dismissed¶44

Sri K Deepak v. Smt H Latha

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1082/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CRL.RP No. 1082 of 2024; High Court of Karnataka; Justice H.P. Sandesh; oral order; revision against concurrent finding; cheque case; Exs.P1 and P2 cheques dated 13.05.2019; admission of cheque issuance; denial of signature; reply notice afterthought; loan availed by mother; Rs.1,00,000/-; monthly instalment Rs.10,000/- till October 2019; S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.; S.438 r/w 442 BNSS; XV ACMM Bengaluru CC.No.16736/2019; LXVIII City Civil and Sessions Judge CRL.A.No.341/2023; revision dismissed on 15.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the challenge to the concurrent findings failed. ¶44

Sri K Deepak Vs Smt H Latha — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the challenge to the concurrent findings failed.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether any ground is made out to entertain the criminal revision petition directed against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court in the cheque case. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

No ground is made out to entertain the revision petition; the concurrent findings of the courts below stand and the revision petition is dismissed.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the admissions on the part of D.W.1, the transaction is admitted, and despite examining himself as D.W.1 the accused has not substantiated that the loan availed by his mother was only Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶39

Key takeaways

The reply notice, given subsequent to filing of the complaint and admitting availing of loan only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, is nothing but an afterthought adopted only to limit the liability.ratio¶39
Nothing is placed on record to substantiate the claim that the borrowed amount was repaid.ratio¶39
D.W.1 categorically admitted that the two cheques belong to him and that he is not doing any travel business.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision petition (S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.; S.438 r/w 442 BNSS) by the accused in a cheque case against the concurrent findings of the XV ACMM, Bengaluru (CC.No.16736/2019, order dt.17.02.2023) and the LXVIII City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CRL.A.No.341/2023, order dt.17.05.2024). The accused admitted that the two cheques (Exs.P1 and P2, dt.13.05.2019) belonged to him, but asserted that the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was availed by his mother and repaid at Rs.10,000/- per month till October 2019, without placing any document on record; his reply notice, given after filing of the complaint and limiting liability to Rs.1,00,000/-, was held to be an afterthought to limit liability, and differing stands (denial of an admitted signature) were noted. Finding the transaction admitted and the defence unsubstantiated, the High Court held no ground existed to entertain the revision and dismissed it.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:36100 CRL.RP No. 1082 of 2024

¶4

CNR: KAHC010466232024

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1082 OF 2024

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. K. DEEPAK S/O S. KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.252, 7^TH CROSS 1^ST MAIN ROAD, PRAKASH NAGAR BENGALURU-560 021.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. AKRAM PASHA K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SMT. H. LATHA W/O SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.9/1, 1^ST G CROSS POOJAMMA TEMPLE ROAD GORUGUNTE PALYA BENGALURU-560 022.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXVIII CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JDUGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.341/2023 DTD 17.05.2024 AND IN CC.NO.16736/2019 DTD 17.02.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XV ACMM, BENGALURU.

¶20

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:36100 CRL.RP No. 1082 of 2024

¶23

CNR: KAHC010466232024

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶28

This revision petition is filed against concurrent finding. It is the specific case of complainant that accused had issued a Cheque acknowledging the liability of the amount which was borrowed by the mother of the accused from the complainant. It is also the specific defence before the Trial Court that he did not borrow the loan. But, his mother borrowed the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and repaid it in monthly installment of Rs.10,000/- till October 2019 and had given two Cheques as admitted in the reply notice and he had also signed those Cheques and it is very clear that Cheques were given in 2018. With regard to repayment of amount of Rs.10,000/- each also, no document is placed before the Court and the same is also admitted in the crossexamination.

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:36100 CRL.RP No. 1082 of 2024

¶31

¶32

CNR: KAHC010466232024

¶33

The argument of learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that Cheques were given on behalf of mother and mother only availed the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and once, the accused admits that he had issued two Cheques and it is also the specific case of the complainant that twice amount was borrowed and on account of receipt of amount of Rs.2,00,000/each twice on different occasions, both the Cheques are issued. Exs.P1 and P2 are the Cheques dated 13.05.2019 and these Cheques are subsequent to availing the loan. It is also the specific case of the complainant that amount was advanced in 2018 and these two Cheques are given subsequently, but the Cheques are of subsequent dates, but P.W.1 says that at the time of availing the loan itself, Cheques are given. Hence, it is clear that D.W.1 categorically admitted that those two Cheques belong to him and he is not doing any travel business. But, he is a driver and he studied upto SSLC. In the reply notice, he did not mention that Cheques not belong to him. But, during the course of evidence while cross-examining P.W.1 and leading evidence denied the signature and also categorically admits in

¶34

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:36100 CRL.RP No. 1082 of 2024

¶37

CNR: KAHC010466232024

¶38

the cross-examination for having misused the Cheques, he has not given any complaint.

¶39

Having taken note of these admissions on the part of D.W.1, the transaction is admitted and the accused has not substantiated the fact that loan availed by the mother is only Rs.1,00,000/- even though examined himself as D.W.1 and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court taken note of the same and the First Appellate Court also having re-appreciated the evidence comes to the conclusion that there is an admission and also taken different stands were taken during the course of evidence denying the signature, though the same is admitted and also considering reply notice which was given subsequent to filing of complaint, wherein admitted availing of loan only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and the said reply is nothing but an afterthought only to limit the liability, such defence was taken that only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was borrowed and for having repaid the amount also, nothing is placed on record. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition and no ground is made out to entertain the revision petition.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:36100 CRL.RP No. 1082 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

CNR: KAHC010466232024

¶44

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶46