Dismissed

Syed Wajid v. Sri Mujeeb Abdul Matheen

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026CRL.RP/1440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under CR.PC, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonor under Section 138 NI Act. The court held that the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption regarding the loan transaction and issuance of cheques for payment.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is dismissed, impugning against the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.

Syed Wajid Vs Sri Mujeeb Abdul Matheen — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6064 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1440 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SYED WAJID, S/O. SYED SAFIULLA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 297, 10TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK EAST, BYRASANDRA JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NANDISH R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI MUJEEB ABDUL MATHEEN, S/O. LATE ABDUL MUJEEB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. 140, MIG, HUDCO LAYOUT, MAIN ROAD, NEAR LOYAL WORLD, BANNIMANTAP EXTENSION, MYSURU - 570 015.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT.PRUTHA BHARATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30/09/2023 IN CC NO. 2268/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT MYSURU, FOR THE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:6064 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

OFFENCES P/U/S/ 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT.B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/08/2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 377/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Accused is before this Court in this Criminal revision

¶25

petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.2268/2019 by

¶26

the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, (IV Court), Mysuru, dated 30.09.2023 and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.377/2023 dated 29.08.2024 by the

¶27

Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru.

¶28

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

Respondent herein had initiated proceedings

¶30

against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act') in C.C.No.2268/2019. It is the case of the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:6064 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

respondent that petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) from him and executed a loan agreement dated 29.11.2018 and also undertaking to repay the said amount with interest. Subsequently, the petitioner had availed further financial assistance from the respondent and totally he was due for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) out of which he had repaid a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) and was due to pay sum of Rs.15,20,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand only). The cheques-in-question bearing Nos.000013 and 000014 drawn on I.D.F.C Bank, Residency Road Branch, dated 25.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) each, which was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, towards the repayment of the amount due, when presented for realisation were dishonored by the drawee bank with shara "Funds Insufficient".

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:6064 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Thereafter respondent got issued statutory legal

¶39

notice to the petitioner which was duly served on 15.05.2019, since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque-in-question in spite of service of notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. In the said proceedings, petitioner, who had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by him in C.C.No.2268/2019 had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶40

In order to substantiate his case, complainant had examined his General Power Of Attorney holder as PW.1 and 13 documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P13. On behalf of the defence, the petitioner examined himself as DW.1 and one document was marked as Ex.D.1. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides filed judgment and order dated 30.09.2023 convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:6064 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

fine of Rs.15,05,000/(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Five Thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.2268/2019 has been confirmed by the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.A.No.377/2023 by judgment and order dated 29.08.2024. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that Courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offence. Respondent has failed to prove the transaction between the parties and the cheque-in-question which was issued in respect of earlier transaction has been misused by the respondent. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:6064 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent

¶50

has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and has prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶51

It is the specific case of the

¶52

respondent/complainant that towards repayment of the amount borrowed by the petitioner he had issued two cheques-in-question for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees

¶53

Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) each. According to the respondent, the amount borrowed by the petitioner has been acknowledged by him under loan agreement Ex.P12 dated 29.11.2018. Perusal of the said document would go

¶54

to show that issuance of the cheques-in-question towards repayment of the amount Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) borrowed by the petitioner has been mentioned in the said loan agreement. The signature of the petitioner found in the loan agreement has not been disputed by him. It is also not in dispute that the cheques-in-question were drawn on the account maintained by the petitioner in I.D.F.C Bank, Residency

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:6064 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Road Branch. The signature found in the said two cheques which are marked as Ex.2(a) and Ex.3(a) are also not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, a presumption arises against the petitioner under Sections 139, 118 of N.I.Act, unless the said presumption is rebutted by putting forward a probable defence, the petitioner is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶59

The petitioner has raised a specific defence that he had earlier borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the respondent and the cheques-in-question were given as a security for the said loan borrowed by him. According to him, he has repaid the said amount but the cheques-in-question were not returned by the respondent thereafter. However, the said defence has not been probabilised by him by producing sufficient oral and documentary evidence before the Court. Ex.D1 is a receipt issued by the respondent for having received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6064 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

from the petitioner. The same would only go to show that there was certain monetary transaction between the petitioner and the accused and it is not sufficient to hold that the loan amount borrowed by the petitioner from the respondent was completely repaid, more so having regard to the loan agreement Ex.P12. In addition to the same, respondent has also produced his bank account statement as Ex.P13 and perusal of the said document would go to show that multiple transactions had taken place between the parties. Ex.P9 is the postal acknowledgement which shows that statutory legal notice Ex.P7 was duly served on the petitioner. No reply was issued on behalf of the petitioner to the said legal notice. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court having appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter and also since the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that arose against him by putting forward a probable defence have rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Even the order of sentence passed against

¶63

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:6064 CRL.RP No. 1440 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

the petitioner is just and proportionate. Therefore, I do not

¶67

see any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶68

Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court Records to enable the Trial Court to proceed against

¶69

the petitioner in accordance with.

¶70

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶71

KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Syed Wajid v. Sri Mujeeb Abdul Matheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Wajid v. Sri Mujeeb Abdul Matheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N Byregowda Vs Smt Devarajamma

S K Sreenivas Vs K Prabhakar Reddy

Mohammed Shoaib Vs the State of Karnataka

Sushma S Vs Anil P

Abu Sulaiman Mandal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Anil Kumar. v Vs Smt. Sharmila. R