M/S. Koiel Food Process Vs Shri. Basavashwara Roller… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

M/S. Koiel Food Process Vs Shri. Basavashwara Roller… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Are the complaints/proceedings maintainable where the cheques were signed by Smt. Geeta Ravindra as partner of both M/s Koiel Biscuits and Snacks (proprietary concern) and M/s Koiel Food Process (partnership firm), the difference in nomenclature/entity being urged to render the proceedings unmaintainable? +3 more

Court's answer

The cheques in all the cases were issued/signed by Smt. Geeta Ravindra (arraigned as accused No.2) as partner, and the two named concerns belong to the same persons; hence the plea that the proprietary concern and the partnership firm are different entities, making the complaint unmaintainable, cannot be accepted.

Ratio / Principle

The technicality that one accused concern is proprietary and another a partnership firm cannot come to the aid of the petitioners; the Court has to deliver substantive justice.

Key takeaways

A defence that cheques were forcefully taken remains merely a defence when not substantiated by rebuttal evidence; the Trial Court took note of the accused's admission of having issued the cheques for Rs.10 lakh and Rs.5 lakh as against the balance of Rs.17 lakh.ratio¶206
In Crl.R.P.No.1176/2024 likewise, there was no rebuttal evidence disputing issuance of the cheque; the cheque is admitted and the misuse defence unsubstantiated.ratio¶177
The claim that the total repayment was Rs.29 lakh and the balance payable only Rs.11 lakh was not substantiated; PW1 admitted receipt of only Rs.23 lakh.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh, J.), oral order dated 23.07.2026 - five criminal revision petitions (Crl.RP Nos. 1175, 1176, 1193, 1194 and 1196 of 2024) by M/s Koiel Biscuits and Snacks, M/s Koiel Food Process and Smt. Geeta Ravindra against cheque-dishonour (S.138 N.I. Act) convictions dated 31.10.2023 (C.C.Nos.2365/2021 to 2369/2021) confirmed on 01.07.2024 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (Crl.A.Nos.418/2023 to 422/2023) - DISMISSED. Held: (1) every subject cheque bore the signature of Geeta Ravindra as partner, both the proprietary concern (Koiel Biscuits and Snacks) and the partnership firm (Koiel Food Process) belonging to the same persons; the plea of distinct entities rendering the complaints unmaintainable was rejected - the nomenclature difference is a technicality that cannot defeat substantive justice; (2) relying on Dhanasingh Prabhu vs Chandrasekar, (2025) 10 SCC 96, a partnership firm has no legal persona apart from its partners, whose liability for dishonour of the firm's cheques is joint and several, not vicarious; (3) the defence that the cheques were forcibly taken at a police station and misused remained unsubstantiated - the accused led no defence evidence, never entered the witness box, and PW1 categorically denied the suggestions; (4) the assertions of repayment totalling Rs.29 lakh (balance Rs.11 lakh) were unsupported, PW1 admitting receipt of only Rs.23 lakh against borrowings of Rs.40 lakh (seven loans) and Rs.35 lakh in the fifth case, which borrowings the accused had herself admitted; in the goods cases both supply and issuance of cheques stood undisputed. Both courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence without miscarriage of justice; no ground was made out to admit the revisions.

1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1175 OF 2024

C/W

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1176 OF 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1193 OF 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1194 OF 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1196 OF 2024

IN CRL.RP NO. 1175/2024

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

M/S KOIEL BISCUITS AND SNACKS #33-B, K.R.S-BEML RAOD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. GEETA RAVINDRA

SMT. GEETA RAVINDRA W/O LATE RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS # 33-B, K.R.S-BEML RAOD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M A, ADVOCATE)

2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

AND:

SHRI BASAVASHWARA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS #33-2, K.R.S-BEML RAOD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18 REP. BY ITS PRARTNER SRI SHARATH CHANDRA S

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE)

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 JUDGEMENT PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.418/2023 DTD 01.07.2024 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU AND ETC.

IN CRL.RP NO. 1176/2024

BETWEEN:

M/S KOIEL BISCUITS AND SNACKS #33-B, K.R.S-BEML RAOD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. GEETA RAVINDRA

SMT. GEETA RAVINDRA W/O LATE RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS # 33-B, K.R.S-BEML RAOD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M A, ADVOCATE)

3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

AND:

SHRI BASAVASHWARA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS #33-2, K.R.S-BEML RAOD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.419/2023 DATED 01.07.2024 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU AND ETC.

IN CRL.RP NO. 1193/2024

BETWEEN:

M/S KOIEL FOOD PROCESS NO.33-B, K.R.S-BEML ROAD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SMT.GEETA RAVINDRA

SMT. GEETA RAVINDRA W/O LATE RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO.33-B, K.R.S-BEML ROAD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M A, ADVOCATE)

4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

AND:

SHRI. BASAVASHWARA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS NO.33-2, K.R.S-BEML ROAD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SHARATH CHANDRA

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNNS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.422/2023 DATED 01.07.2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU AND ETC.

IN CRL.RP NO. 1194/2024

BETWEEN:

M/S KOIEL FOOD PROCESS NO.33-B, K.R.S-BEML ROAD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SMT. GEETA RAVINDRA

SMT. GEETA RAVINDRA W/O LATE RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO.33-B, K.R.S-BEML ROAD

5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M A,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI. BASAVASHWARA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS NO.33-2, K.R.S-BEML ROAD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SHARATH CHANDRA

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PUNITH C, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNNS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.421/2023 DATED 01.07.2024 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU AND ETC.

IN CRL.RP NO. 1196/2024

BETWEEN:

M/S KOIEL FOOD PROCESS NO.33-B, K.R.S-BEML ROAD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SMT. GEETA RAVINDRA

HC-KAR

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

SMT. GEETA RAVINDRA W/O LATE RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NO.33-B, K.R.S-BEML ROAD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA M A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI. BASAVASHWARA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS NO.33-2, K.R.S-BEML ROAD HOOTAGAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA MYSURU-18 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SHARATH CHANDRA

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PUNITH C.,ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.420/2023 DATED 01.07.2024 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU AND ETC.

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

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

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

ORAL ORDER

The Crl.R.P.No.1175/2024 is filed against the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed in C.C.No.2367/2021 and against the judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.418/2023; Crl.R.P.No.1176/2024 is filed against the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed in C.C.No.2369/2021 and against the judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.419/2023; Crl.R.P.No.1193/2024 is filed against the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed in C.C.No.2368/2021 and against the judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.422/2023; Crl.R.P.No.1194/2024 is filed against the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed in C.C.No.2366/2021 and against the judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.421/2023 and Crl.R.P.No.1196/2024 is filed against the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed in C.C.No.2365/2021 and against the judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.420/2023.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. Though these revision petitions are filed separately

in respect of individual judgments passed by the trial Court and

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

the Appellate Court, all the matters were taken up together for common disposal since the complainant – Shri Basavashwara Roller Flour Mills is same in all the petitions and in first two cases, accused is M/s. Koiel Biscuts and Snacks and another and remaining three cases, accused is M/s. Koiel Food Process and another but partner in all the cases who had signed subject matter of cheques is one and the same.

In Crl.R.P.No.1175/2024

The counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that case of the respondent is that the accused has issued Cheque bearing No.207304 dated 03.02.2021 drawn on the Tumkur Grain Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd., Vijaya Nagar Branch, Mysuru for a sum of Rs.10 lakh. The said cheque was issued pursuant to the transactions made during the period from 18.04.2018 to 06.03.2019 towards purchasing of raw materials worth for Rs.17,47,050/-. The counsel in his argument would vehemently contend that the respondent has not proved that cheque was given in discharge of debt or liability by M/s Koiel Biscuits and Snacks which is a proprietorship firm and whereas the

9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

impugned cheque was issued by M/s Koiel Food Process which is a partnership firm to whom, no notice is issued demanding to

make payment under Section 138 of N.I. Act and these two firms are different entities. The other contention in the revision

petition is that the respondent has not produced any documents to prove that there was contractual relationship with the petitioner insofar as either making payments towards arrears of bill amount or towards borrowings. The respondent/complainant also admitted in his cross-examination on 03.07.2018 that he has received Rs.62,59,000/- and odd from the petitioner/accused through RTGS. When such being the case, the question of either presenting the cheque or recovering the balance outstanding amount towards any pending bills or clearing of alleged borrowings does not arise. Hence, both the Courts failed to consider the same.

In Crl.R.P.No.1176/2026

The counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that case of the respondent is that the accused has issued Cheque bearing No.944252 dated 03.02.2021 drawn on the Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

operative Bank Ltd., Vijaya Nagar Branch, Mysuru for a sum of Rs.5 lakh. The said cheque was issued pursuant to the transactions made during the period from 18.04.2018 to 06.03.2019 towards purchasing of raw materials worth for Rs.17,47,050/-. The counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Trial Court and Appellate Court have committed an error in considering the case of revision petitioner. The counsel would vehemently contend that the respondent/complainant has not proved that cheque was given in discharge of debt or liability by M/s Koiel Biscuits and Snacks which is a proprietorship firm and whereas the impugned cheque was issued by M/s Koiel Food Process which is a partnership firm to whom, no notice is issued demanding to make payment under Section 138 of N.I. Act and these two firms are different entities. The other contention in the revision petition is that the respondent has not produced any documents to prove that there was contractual relationship with the petitioner insofar as either making payments towards arrears of bill amount or towards borrowings. The respondent/complainant also admitted in his cross-examination

11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

on 03.07.2018 that he has received Rs.62,59,000/- and odd from the petitioner/accused through RTGS. When such being the case, the question of either presenting the cheque or recovering the balance outstanding amount towards any pending bills or clearing of alleged borrowings does not arise. Hence, both the Courts failed to consider the same.

In Crl.R.P.No.1193/2024

The counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the respondent is guilty of suppression of material evidence which was exposed during the cross-examination dated 17.05.2023 and legal notice has not come forward with the true version of the incident. Courts below ought not to have convicted the petitioner when the respondent has failed to prove that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt or liability. The respondent also admitted in his cross-examination on 10.03.2023 and on 17.05.2023 that he has not only received Rs.62 lakh and odd from the petitioner through RTGS but also has received a sum of Rs.23 lakh and Rs.29 lakh and has presented another cheque for a sum of Rs.5 lakh which was presented on the same day

12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

resulted in returning of the impugned cheque as high value cheque confer. Hence, the Courts below failed to consider this point and has wrongly drawn the conclusion that the petitioner has committed an offence as alleged by the complainant. The Trial Court and Appellate Court committed an error in convicting her even inspite of specific defence was taken.

In Crl.R.P.No.1194/2024

The counsel for the revision petitioners would vehemently contend that the Courts below ought not to have convicted the petitioner when the respondent has failed to prove that cheque was issued for enforcement of legally recoverable debt or liability. The complainant also admitted in his cross-examination on 03.07.2018 that he has not only received Rs.62 lakh but also admitted that as against the said sum of Rs.40 lakh, has received a sum of Rs.23 lakh and balance amount of Rs.17 lakh to be paid. Surprisingly, the Appellate court has failed to appreciate the contention which was taken by the petitioner in her appeal at paragraph 3 wherein it is narrated about the payments received by the respondent by referring to the other cases wherein the

13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

complainant/respondent has admitted the receipt of the payments made by the petitioner. The counsel also vehemently contend that in paragraph 3 of the chief affidavit of complainant, it is stated that he has demanded the accused to pay the amount with nominal interest of Rs.5 lakh. The respondent stated in his complaint that accused has borrowed Rs.35 lakh and interest is Rs.5 lakh. The respondent has presented the cheque totally for Rs.40 lakh. Moreover, the respondent stated that in C.C.Nos.2365/2021 and 2368/2021, the accused paid only Rs.23 lakh out of Rs.40 lakh and for remaining balance, the accused has issued another two cheques for Rs.10 lakh dated 03.02.2021 in C.C.No.2366/2021 and another cheque for Rs.5 lakh in C.C.No.2368/2021. The Trial Court has not deducted Rs.23 lakh and the Trial Court has not considered the said facts and erroneously convicted the accused/revision petitioner. The Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the payment of Rs.62 lakh through RTGS to the respondent which is admitted fact. Thus, the very approach of the Trial Court and Appellate Court is erroneous.

14 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

In Crl.R.P.No.1196/2024

The counsel appearing for the petitioners prays this

Court set aside the impugned order and contend that the Appellate Court itself is confused with regard to the two different entity of firm. In the cause title of the final order dated 01.07.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.420/2023, though the impugned Cheque alleged to have been issued is by M/s Koiel Food Process, which is a partnership firm, it is mentioned as M/s Koiel Biscuits and Snacks. On the ground of this mistake, though error is humane, but based on the transaction, complaint lodged on behalf of M/s Koiel Biscuits and Snacks is narrated in the final order. The counsel also vehemently contend that Session Judge was in error in convicting the accused inspite of the fact that complainant admitted that out of Rs.40 lakh so lent, he has received a sum of Rs.29 lakh and balance amount of Rs.11 lakh is due which is contradictory, unreliable and artificial and committed an error in convicting the accused. The Courts ought not to have convicted the petitioner when the respondent has failed to prove that cheque was issued for enforcement of legally recoverable debt. There is

15 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

a clear admission of respondent that on 03.07.2018 he has not only received Rs.62,59,000/- from the petitioner/accused through RTGS, but also admitted that apart from this amount, a sum of Rs.29 lakh is also received from the petitioner. All these admissions given by the respondent was not taken note of by the Courts below.

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant in his argument would submit that in Crl.R.P.No.1175/2024, complaint was filed against the accused for the transaction stating that accused had purchased the goods from complainant's Mill on credit basis from 18.04.2018 to 06.03.2019. In total, accused had purchased the goods worth Rs.17,47,050/-. When the complainant demanded the payment with nominal interest, accused has issued a cheque for Rs.10 lakh towards the part payment but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement ‘accounts closed’. Hence, the complaint was filed in respect of the goods purchased from the complainant Mill on credit basis.

The counsel also would submit that Crl.R.P.No.1176/2024 is also in respect of the goods purchased

16 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

for the same period and cheque was issued for an amount of Rs.5 lakh on 03.02.2021 and the said cheque was returned with an endorsement dated 05.02.2021 ‘funds insufficient’. These two revisions are only in respect of the goods which have been purchased and for balance amount of Rs.17 lakh.

The counsel for the respondent in respect of Crl.R.P.No.1193/2024 would submit that the accused was in financial contingency and he has approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.10 lakh on 23.04.2019; Rs.5 lakh on 24.04.2019; Rs.5 lakh on 03.05.2019; Rs.5 lakh on 04.05.2019; Rs.5 lakh on 10.05.2019; Rs.5 lakh on 13.05.2019 and Rs.5 lakh on 15.05.2019. In total, accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.40 lakh with a promise to return the same within one year from the date of borrowing. But accused failed to repay the said amount to the complainant within one year as agreed. But paid only Rs.23 lakh and for the balance amount of Rs.17 lakh, accused has issued a cheque for Rs.5 lakh on 03.02.2021 as a part payment. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was returned to complainant unpaid with bank endorsement ‘high value cheque confer’ dated

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

05.02.2021 and hence, this proceeding was initiated against the accused.

The counsel for the respondent in Crl. R.P. No.1194/2024 would contend that in respect of very same transaction i.e., when accused made the payment of Rs.23 lakh as against Rs.40 lakh and for balance amount of Rs.17 lakh, accused issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.10 lakh dated 03.02.2021 as a part payment and the said cheque was returned with an endorsement ‘account closed’.

The counsel for the respondent in

Crl.R.P.No.1196/2024 would vehemently contend that this proceeding was initiated in respect of the complainant made the payment to the accused when accused approached for improve her business and borrowed an amount of Rs.20 lakh on 04.07.2018; Rs.10 lakh on 10.07.2018; Rs.5 lakh on 05.12.2018. In total, accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.35 lakh with a promise to return the said amount with nominal interest within a year from the date of borrowing. But accused failed to repay the said amount of Rs.35 lakh to the complainant within one year. When the complainant demanded

18 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

the accused to pay the amount of Rs.35 lakh with nominal interest, accused issued a cheque for Rs.40 lakh on 30.01.2021 and the same was returned with an endorsement …. The counsel submits that this is a different transaction in respect of different loan amount which was borrowed. Hence, counsel clarifies the same during his course of argument that these cheques are issued in connection with the amount which was borrowed subsequently. Trial Court considered all these matters separately and rightly convicted the accused. The Appellate Court also taken note that in each and every cases, the transactions are different and comes to the conclusion that Trial Court rightly convicted the accused and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, there are no grounds to entertain these revision petitions.

Having heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, facts of each case considered separately. It is specific case of complainant in Crl.R.P.Nos.1175/2024 and 1176/2024 is that the defence which was taken by the respondent that cheque was given as a security and the same was misused. To that

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

effect, the specific case of the complainant that as against the purchase of goods worth of Rs.17,47,050/- these two cheques are issued. One cheque is returned with an endorsement ‘account closed’ and another cheque is returned with an endorsement ‘Funds insufficient’. The Trial Court having considered the defence which was taken, in paragraph 18 comes to the conclusion that the accused has not disputed the cheque and signature as well as notice of dishonour of cheque. PW1 was cross examined with regard to PW1's authority to file the case. The complainant is a partnership firm and it is represented by its partner i.e., PW1. Moreover, it is suggested in the cross-examination of PW1 that complainant firm is duly registered and specific suggestion was made that Ex.P1 cheque was taken forcefully in the police station and the same was misused and the same is extracted in paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Trial court. The main defence was also considered that accused has transferred Rs.62,59,000/through RTTS to the complainant on 03.07.2018. Out of the said amount, complainant returned Rs.20 lakh to the accused. Therefore, complainant has to make set off the bill amount for

20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

the remaining amount. Therefore, accused has not issued the cheque Ex.P1 towards the payment of bill amount to the complainant. But accused has failed to establish that why she was forced to give cheques in the police station by leading any defence evidence before the Trial Court. The evidence of PW1 is very clear with regard to the issuance of the cheque in police station which was categorically denied. Trial Court comes to the conclusion that it is well settled law that burden of accused to rebut the case of complainant and the same is not done and she did not enter into the witness box and the issuance of cheque is not disputed and also the transaction is also not disputed and having purchased the goods is also not disputed and only the defence was taken that made the payment of Rs.62,59,000/- was paid through RTGS and the same is also not disputed by the complainant and the same is for earlier transaction. With regard to the defence is that cheque was taken forcefully in the police station is not substantiated by leading any defence evidence and there is no rebuttal evidence.

In respect of Crl.R.P.No.1176/2024 is concerned, the said case is also in respect of the purchase of goods and

21 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

cheque was given for an amount of Rs.5 lakh and witness was also cross examined as PW1 wherein similar defence was taken and the same was extracted in paragraph 29 of the judgment and with regard to the payment of Rs.62,59,000/- was also discussed by the trial Court. The Trial Court in order to come to other conclusion, there is no rebuttal evidence before the court disputing the issuance of the cheque. This cheque is also admitted. But the defence of misuse of cheque is concerned, not led any defence evidence except cross examining PW1 and in the cross examination of PW1, denied the suggestion that forcefully taken the cheque in the police station and the same is not substantiated.

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before this Court is that the accused is Koiel Biscuits and Snacks and the same is a proprietary concern and the other cases are with the Koiel Food Process which is a partnership concern. Hence, the same are different entity since one is a proprietary concern and another is a partnership concern and no notice was issued to the particular Food Process

22 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

concern. Hence, the very complaint against the accused is not maintainable.

Having taken note of the said contention and also material on record, it discloses that cheque was issued by the Geeta Ravindra who has been arraigned as accused No.2 and cheque was issued in the name of Koiel Biscuits and Snacks and the name of Koiel Food Processes. But accused No.2 is the partner of both the concern and in all the cases, cheques are issued by the Geeta Ravindra. Hence, the said two concern belongs to them only. The nomenclature was changed in respect of the accused is concerned. But when the cheque was issued by the Geeta Ravindra in all the cases, very contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted that nomenclature of the accused firm is different i.e., partnership firm and proprietary concern. But cheque is signed by Geeta Ravindra as partner in all the cheques.

This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2025) 10 SCC 96 in the case of

Dhanasingh Prabhu vs Chandrasekar And Another

wherein with regard to the company as well as partnership

23 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

issue was arise, the Apex Court distinguished the same. In a case of company, invoking of Section 141 is concerned, it must be mandatory to the complaint under Section 141 of the Act so also in respect of the partnership is concerned, the Apex Court held in this judgment that when the business is by a firm is not really a legal entity separate and distinct as a company is from its directors but can have a legal persona only when the partnership firm is considered along with its partners. Thus the partnership firm has no separate recognition either jurisprudentially or in law apart from its partners. Therefore while a director of a company can be vicariously liable for an offence committed by a company, insofar as a partnership firm is concerned, when the offence is committed by such a firm, in substance, the offence is committed by the partners of the firm and not just the firm per se. Therefore the partners of the firm are liable for the dishonour of a cheque, even though the cheque may have been issued in the name of the firm and the offence is committed by the firm. Therefore in law and in jurisprudence when a partnership firm is proceeded against, in substance, the partners are liable and the said liability is joint

24 -

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

and several and is not vicarious. This is unlike a company which is liable by itself and since it is an artificial juristic entity, the persons in charge of the affairs of the company or who conduct its business only become vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company. The Apex Court distinguished with regard to the legal entity of the company as well as the partnership.

In the case on hand, though the nomenclature of the firm is different but cheques are issued by Geeta Ravindra who has been arrayed in all the cases as accused No.2. In the present case, cheques are issued by accused No.2 as a partner. When such being the case, the very contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted that one is a proprietary concern and another is a partnership firm. That technicality cannot come to the aid of the petitioners as contented by the counsel for the petitioner and Court has to deliver substantive justice.

Having considered the factual aspects of other three

cases, the same are in respect of borrowing of amount. Crl.R.P.Nos.1193/2024 and 1194/2024 are arising out of the

25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

loan transactions particularly seven loan transactions wherein, in all received an amount of Rs.40 lakh. The complainant’s specific case is that out of Rs.40 lakh, an amount of Rs.23 lakh was received and for balance amount of Rs.17 lakh is concerned, cheque of Rs.10 lakh was issued in one case and in another case, towards the very same transaction, cheque for an amount of Rs.5 lakh was issued. The transactions are of the year 2019 when the loan was borrowed on different dates. The case of the complainant that the cheque was bounced with an endorsement ‘account closed’. The specific evidence of complainant is that an amount of Rs.23 lakh was received and for balance amount, cheques are issued. In the crossexamination of PW1 in C.C.No.2366/2021 also, the specific defence was taken that as against the amount of Rs.40 lakh, she has repaid the amount of Rs.29 lakh to the complainant and she was ready to return the balance amount of Rs.11 lakh. But she has not issued the cheque in question towards the payment of legally recoverable debt. Rather the cheque which was obtained by the complainant in a Police Station by force, she was ready to make balance payment. The Trial Court

26 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

considered the contentions taken in the reply notice and the suggestion made in the cross-examination of PW1 and held that they are inconsistent to each other.

It is specific case of complainant that out of Rs.40 lakh, Rs.23 lakh was received and for payment of balance amount of Rs.17 lakh, issued cheques for Rs.10 lakh and Rs.5 lakh respectively as a part payment. This Court already taken note of the fact that when the defence was taken that forcefully cheques were taken, the same is not substantiated by the accused rebutting the same placing any cogent evidence. Hence, defence remains as defence when there is no rebuttal evidence. Hence, Trial Court taken note of the admission on the part of the accused for having issued the cheques for an amount of Rs.10 lakh and Rs.5 lakh as against Rs.17 lakh. But contention that balance was only Rs.11 lakh , but she did not rebut the said contention stating that she was liable only Rs.11 lakh and not for Rs.17 lakh and the same was not substantiated by leading any cogent evidence and total payment of Rs.29 lakh is not substantiated but PW1 admitted receipt of only Rs.23 lakh.

27 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

In respect of Crl.R.P.No.1196/2024 is concerned, the specific case of the complainant that on different dates, accused has received total amount of Rs.35 lakh as loan agreeing to repay the same with interest. But did not pay the interest and principal amount and on demand, she has issued cheque for Rs.40 lakh. In this case also when PW1 was examined and produced the documents of Ex.P1 to P9 including the reply notice, the Trial Court taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 during the course of crossexamination since accused has not led any defence evidence. In paragraph 19, DW1 says that out of the borrowed amount of Rs.40 lakh, she has repaid Rs.35 lakh through RTGS to the complainant. But by misusing the said cheques, the said complaint has been filed. The Trial Court taken note of the reply notice wherein the accused has taken contention that out of Rs.62 lakh, the complainant has returned Rs.55 lakh to the accused. Therefore, the complainant is due to return only Rs.7 lakh to the accused. Further, accused has admitted the borrowing of an amount of Rs.40 lakh from the complainant. But she contended that out of the said amount, she has repaid

28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

the amount of Rs.29 lakh to the complainant and she was ready to return the balance amount of Rs.11 lakh. She has not issued the cheque in question towards the payment of any legally recoverable debt, rather the cheque which was obtained by complainant in the Police Station by force but, the same was also not substantiated. Also taken note of suggestion made to the witness which was extracted in paragraph 20, wherein suggestion was made that having admitted the borrowing of an amount of Rs.35 lakh through RTGS, but defence was taken that the cheques which were taken in the presence of the police were misused and the same was categorically denied by PW1. Though the said defence was taken, accused has not led any defence evidence before the Court to rebut the case of the complainant.

The very case of the accused in C.C.No.2365/2021 is that she made the payment of Rs.62 lakh on 03.07.2018 to the complainant through RTGS and the same was with regard to earlier transaction. But the complainant has returned Rs.20 lakh on 04.07.2018 i.e., very next day saying that he is unable to supply maida. But no such suggestion was made to PW1

29 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

and no document is placed before the Trial Court to prove the said defence and even she did not choose to enter into the witness box to substantiate the same. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the same is not rebutted. But the question of rebuttal does not arise. The rebuttal arises only if the same is proved by placing the material before the Court. But no such document is produced before the Court. On perusal of the record, it discloses that except making such suggestion, even not entered into the witness box to prove the same and no defence evidence is also led before the Court.

Having taken note of the material available on record, it discloses that except the cross examination made in all the cases by the revision petitioner, there is no any rebuttal evidence before the Court. The defence which was taken must have been substantiated. In all the cases, suggestion was made that cheques were obtained in the police station. But in order to substantiate the same, no material is placed before the Court. Thus, the defence which was taken remains as defence when the same is not substantiated. The factum of supply of goods

30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

CNR: KAHC010552212024

is in respect of first two cases is concerned, not disputed the same and issuance of cheque is also not disputed. In respect of other two cases is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioner that the balance was payable is only Rs.11 lakh and not Rs.17 lakh but, the same is also not substantiated.

On the other hand, complainant has produced the document of cheque for having issued towards the balance amount of Rs.10 lakh and Rs.5 lakh in respect of third and fourth case and fifth case is in respect of amount borrowed on different dates to the tune of Rs.40 lakh and in respect of all these transactions, a separate criminal cases are filed. Though defence was taken that an amount of Rs.20 lakh was returned and the same is not substantiated by placing any document. The very specific case of the complainant that on three different dates, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.35 lakh and agreed to repay the said amount with interest. When accused did not repay the amount, issued cheque for an amount of Rs.40 lakh for having made the payment towards borrowing of the amount of Rs.35 lakh in the year 2018. Subsequently, with regard to

31 - NC: 2026:KHC:37996 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2024 C/W CRL.RP No. 1176 of 2024 CRL.RP No. 1193 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010552212024

availing of amount of Rs.40 lakh is concerned, no rebuttal evidence is placed before the Court.

Having taken note of all these materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that both the Trial Court and Appellate Court have not committed any error in appreciating the evidence available on record and there is no any miscarriage of justice in not considering the material available on record. Hence, the orders of both the Courts do not suffer from its legality and correctness. When such being the case, I do not find any force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that both the Courts have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Hence, no ground is made out to admit these revision petitions. Accordingly, the revision petitions are

dismissed .

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN/SSD

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Are the complaints/proceedings maintainable where the cheques were signed by Smt. Geeta Ravindra as partner of both M/s Koiel Biscuits and Snacks (proprietary concern) and M/s Koiel Food Process (partnership firm), the difference in nomenclature/entity being urged to render the proceedings unmaintainable?¶178
The court held
The cheques in all the cases were issued/signed by Smt. Geeta Ravindra (arraigned as accused No.2) as partner, and the two named concerns belong to the same persons; hence the plea that the proprietary concern and the partnership firm are different entities, making the complaint unmaintainable, cannot be accepted.ratio¶183
2.
Were the dishonoured cheques issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, given the complainant's admitted receipt of Rs.62,59,000/- through RTGS and the accused's assertions of further repayments (Rs.23 lakh admitted; Rs.29 lakh asserted)?¶120
The court held
The claim that the total repayment was Rs.29 lakh and the balance payable only Rs.11 lakh was not substantiated; PW1 admitted receipt of only Rs.23 lakh.ratio¶206
3.
Was the defence that the cheques were forcibly taken in the police station and misused substantiated, and did the absence of rebuttal/defence evidence leave the conclusions of the courts below undisturbed?¶168
The court held
A defence that cheques were forcefully taken remains merely a defence when not substantiated by rebuttal evidence; the Trial Court took note of the accused's admission of having issued the cheques for Rs.10 lakh and Rs.5 lakh as against the balance of Rs.17 lakh.ratio¶206
4.
Did the Trial Court and the Appellate Court err in appreciating the evidence so as to occasion a miscarriage of justice warranting interference in revision?¶229
The court held
Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not committed any error in appreciating the evidence available on record and there is no miscarriage of justice; their orders suffer from no illegality or incorrectness.ratio¶229