This oral order dismissed a criminal revision petition. The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused for cheque dishonour, noting that her contradictory defences were unsubstantiated and that no preponderance of probability existed for the trial court to interfere.
Petition dismissed with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:37889 CRL.RP No. 1691 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010751342024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1691 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE)
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 DTD 13.08.2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, IN CRL.A.NO.220/2023 AND JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DTD
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:37889 CRL.RP No. 1691 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010751342024
03.10.2023 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN CC.NO.4947/2017 AND TO ALLOW THIS PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.
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 for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed against the concurrent
finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant
before the Trial Court is that the accused and the complainant are known to each other and the accused had approached the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly, the complainant made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and towards the discharge of loan amount, the accused had issued the subject matter of cheque. When the said cheque was presented, the same was returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, notice was issued and the same was
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010751342024
served, but no reply was given. Hence, complaint was filed and the accused was secured before the Trial Court and she did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the complainant in order to substantiate his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. The accused examined herself as D.W.1, but not led any defence evidence.
4. The accused in her chief examination has deposed that the complainant is a real estate agent and she was intending to purchase a site through the complainant. In pursuance of which, the complainant had taken her signed cheque in order to enquire regarding the existence of her bank account. But there was no any sale agreement or sale deed and the very defence was not substantiated. The Trial Court taken note of the same in paragraph No.45. The defence taken by the accused in her chief examination and the defence taken during the cross-examination of P.W.1 are totally contrary to each other. The Trial Court taking note of the contra defence and the same is not substantiated, convicted and sentenced the accused.
NC: 2026:KHC:37889 CRL.RP No. 1691 of 2024
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010751342024
5. The Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner before this Court also urges the same ground that the cheque was collected by the complainant, since he was working as a real estate agent.
7. The Trial Court taken note of contra evidence of the accused. In one breath she says that in order to purchase the property, cheque was given and in another breath in the crossexamination she says that in order to enquire regarding the existence of the bank account of the accused, the cheque was
given and the same is considered by the Trial Court in paragraph No.45 and reasons are assigned. When such defence was taken, the same was not substantiated by placing on record any cogent evidence and even no reply was given to the notice and only afterthought during the course of crossexamination such defence was taken. The accused except examining herself as D.W.1, not placed any record and there is no any preponderance of probabilities to doubt the case of the
NC: 2026:KHC:37889 CRL.RP No. 1691 of 2024
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010751342024
complainant. Under the circumstances, when the cheque was admitted, the question of interfering with the finding of the
Trial Court does not arise.
8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is
dismissed.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court would interfere with the conviction and sentence of the accused where the defence explanation regarding the cheque issue was found unsubstantiated and contradictory.
Whether the revision petition is maintainable when the judgment of the lower appellate court upholding the conviction is correct.
SMT. NALINI CHANDRASHEKAR
SRI. H.P. LOKESHA
H.P.SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
