Dismissed¶35

M.G Vinesh v. Monappa

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2026CRL.RP/1520/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cheque dishonour; Negotiable Instruments Act Section 139 presumption; cheque-given-as-security defence; hand loan Rs.1,40,000/-; concurrent findings; limited scope of criminal revision; Cr.P.C. Sections 397/401; BNSS Sections 438/442; CRL.RP No.1520 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka; Kodagu; Ponnampet; Virajpet; dismissal of revision petition.

What did the court decide?

With the defence not substantiated, there is no error on the part of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court in appreciating the material on record, and the concurrent finding is given based on oral and documentary evidence available on record. ¶35

M.G Vinesh Vs Monappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25608 CRL.RP No. 1520 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1520 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M.G. VINESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O M. GANAPATHY, RESIDING AT NITOOR VILLAGE, BALELE POST, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU-571219.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. ASHWINI O., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MONAPPA, AGED MAJOR, S/O A.M. RAMACHANDRA, RESIDING AT KOTTAGERI VILLAGE, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU-571219.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. KIRAN M.M., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI SITTING AT VIRAJPET IN CRL.A.NO.5024/2023 AND THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 30.06.2023 IN CC.NO.416/2019 BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:25608 CRL.RP No. 1520 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND JMFC AT PONNAMPET, KODAGU AND SET THE PETITIONER AT LIBERTY, HOLDING THAT PROSECUTION HAS NOT PROVED THE PETITIONERS GUILT.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that in the first week of May 2019, the accused had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from him and towards repayment, issued the subject matter of cheque and the same was presented and dishonored and hence, notice was issued and reply was given. The defence was set up that the cheque was given as a security. The Trial Court considering the material available on record, comes to the conclusion that with regard to the defence is concerned, the same is not substantiated and only defence was taken that earlier the complainant entrusted the accused for soil excavation work through JCB. But the dispute is regarding issuance of cheque.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:25608 CRL.RP No. 1520 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

No doubt, the accused examined himself and also examined one witness and got marked the documents Exs.D.1 and 2 and the same was also taken note of by the Trial Court. When a suggestion was made to P.W.1, he categorically denied that he has collected any cheque for security and in order to substantiate the same, the accused has not placed any material on record and hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the accused has failed to prove that the cheque in question has not been issued for the transaction involved in this case. The revision petitioner also not disputes the signature and admits the same. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the same is not rebutted as under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶32

The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record, particularly in paragraph No.25, comes to the conclusion that P.W.1 consistently deposed that in the first week of May 2019 he advanced the loan of Rs.1,40,000/- and also material discloses that both of them are neighbours and residing at a distance of 500 metres. D.W.2 admitted that he does not know who filled the cheque and date

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25608 CRL.RP No. 1520 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

of transaction. Though D.W.2 is examined, his evidence not supports his contention. When such being case, when the defence was not substantiated, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court in appreciating the material available on record and concurrent finding is given based on oral and documentary evidence available on record and hence, no ground is made out to admit the revision petition since the scope of revision is limited. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶37

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

M.G Vinesh v. Monappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.G Vinesh v. Monappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gajalakshmi Vs Sri. T. Girigowda

Sri B N Shivananda Vs Sri M Chandrashekar

Sri Ganga @ Gangadhar Naika Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Pillachanamma Vs Smt Sakamma

Sri Annervaz K M Vs Smt. Fahad Khalid

Sri. Girish Vs Sri. T.Madhu