Sri Reegun C Vs Smt. Pushpa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Reegun C Vs Smt. Pushpa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petitioner substantiated his contention that he did not issue the cheque in favour of the complainant but issued it in favour of one M D Pushpa. +2 more

Court's answer

Issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon are not disputed; hence the presumption operates in favour of the holder of the cheque and the burden is on the accused to disprove the cheque and the existence of any legal or recoverable debt.

Ratio / Principle

The defence that the cheque was issued in favour of M D Pushpa was not substantiated: no defence evidence was led and no document was marked in support of it.

Key takeaways

The defence remained mere defence — nothing was established to prove it and the evidence of the complainant was not rebutted.ratio¶28
On the argument that no notice was served, the First Appellate Court held that it was not the accused's case that the notice was not issued by the complainant; the addressee's address was improper but was not denied and no reply was given, and this Court took that position into account.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU — CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2025 (NC: 2026:KHC:26118), oral order dated 03.06.2026 by Justice H.P. Sandesh. Criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.PC by the convicted accused (Sri Reegun C) praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and orders on sentence dated 05.09.2023 in C.C.No.498/2017 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Hoskote, against respondent Smt. Pushpa. Dismissed at admission stage. Held: issuance of the cheque and the signature being undisputed, the presumption favours the holder of the cheque and the burden lies on the accused to disprove the cheque and any legal or recoverable debt; the plea that the cheque was issued in favour of 'one M D Pushpa' and not the complainant failed for want of any defence evidence or marked documents, leaving the complainant's evidence unrebutted; the non-service-of-notice objection was answered by the First Appellate Court's finding that the accused never claimed the notice was not issued, the address being improper yet not denied and no reply given; and the appellate court had concluded (paragraph 21) that the contention that the cheque was issued to another party as security could not be accepted. The orders of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were held free from any illegality or incorrectness and no ground was found to admit the revision petition, which was accordingly dismissed.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:26118 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1277 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI REEGUN C S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KORALURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINATH P, ADVOCATE) AND:

SMT. PUSHPA Digitally signed W/O MANJUNATHA PRASANNA by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS Location: HIGH COURT OF R/AT K. MALLASANDRA VILLAGE KARNATAKA KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114 VARTHUR POLICE STATION

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR R H, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDERS ON SENTENCE PASSED IN C.C.NO.498/2017 DTD

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26118 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2025

HC-KAR

05.09.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSKOTE AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

Having perused the material on record, it discloses that the issuance of cheque is not in dispute and also the signature in the said cheque is also not in dispute. Hence, there is a presumption in favour of holder of the Cheque and the burden is on the accused to disprove the cheque and also disprove the existence of any legal or recoverable debt.

Though contention was taken by the revision petitioner that he has not issued the cheque in favour of the complainant but the same was issued in favour of one M D Pushpa. The said fact is not substantiated by leading any defence evidence and not marked any document in this regard.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26118 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2025

HC-KAR

Thus, the defence remains as defence since nothing is established to prove the said defence and also not rebutted the evidence of the complainant. The same was taken note of by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court, when the argument was canvassed that no notice was served, held that it is not the case of the accused that the notice was not issued by the complainant. Having improper address of the addressee and also even not denied the address and not given any reply. Apart from that the First Appellate Court also in detail considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo and in paragraph 21 comes to the conclusion that it is not the case of the appellant that he had issued the cheque to some other party as a matter of security or otherwise and the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted.

Having taken note of no denial of signature on the

Cheque and also no denial of issuance of Cheque and defence which was raised by the revision petitioner also has not been substantiated and not led any defence evidence and also not marked any documents, the order impugned passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court not suffers from

NC: 2026:KHC:26118 CRL.RP No. 1277 of 2025

4 -

HC-KAR

any illegality or correctness. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, revision petition is

dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN