Dismissed¶38

Smt. Shravani v. Smt. B T Jayanthi

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026CRL.RP/1868/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025; decided 04.06.2026; H.P.Sandesh J.; revision under S.438 r/w S.442 BNSS 2023 against Crl.A.No.96/2024 (III Addl. District and Sessions Court, Hassan); cheque dishonour; hand loan Rs.8,00,000/- dated 05.05.2016; endorsement 'insufficient funds'; notice 'not claimed'; statutory presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act not rebutted; defence of security cheque not substantiated; concurrent findings of Trial Court and appellate Court; limited scope of revisional jurisdiction; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The specific defence that the cheque was issued as a security when a loan was availed was not substantiated by leading cogent evidence. ¶35

Smt. Shravani Vs Smt. B T Jayanthi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438/442 BNSS, 2023 can be exercised against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the appellate Court that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, where the defence of a security cheque was not substantiated.

¶35

Court's answer

The specific defence that the cheque was issued as a security when a loan was availed was not substantiated by leading cogent evidence.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The scope of revision is limited to examining the legality and correctness of the findings of both the Courts below; unless the impugned orders of both Courts suffer from illegality or incorrectness, the question of exercising revisional jurisdiction does not arise.

¶35

Key takeaways

Issuance of the cheque and service of notice are not in dispute and the defence taken was not substantiated, as noted by both the Courts below; therefore there is no ground to exercise the revisional jurisdiction or to admit the revision petition.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition (CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025) under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2025 in Crl.A.No.96/2024 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Court, Hassan, confirming the Trial Court judgment in a cheque dishonour case. Complainant gave a hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- on 05.05.2016; the cheque was dishonoured with endorsement 'insufficient funds' and notice was returned with endorsement 'not claimed'. Accused's defence that a signed blank cheque was taken as security was not substantiated by cogent evidence (only Ex.D1 to D5 in O.S.No.606/2018 were placed). Both Courts below concurrently held that issuance of cheque, dishonour and service of notice were not in dispute and the statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act was not rebutted. Held: scope of revision is limited to examining legality and correctness of the findings of both Courts; absent illegality or incorrectness, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised. Petition dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1868 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHRAVANI D/O KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A. NO.159, 1^ST STAGE BRUNDAVANA BADAVANE MYSORE-570002

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI S.MANOJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

SMT. B T JAYANTHI W/O CR MANJUNATHA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Location: HIGH R/A. RAJALAKHMI NILAYA COURT OF VIVEKANANDA ROAD KARNATAKA 1^ST CROSS, BEHIND DENTAL COLLEGE VIDYA NAGAR HASSAN-573201

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NISHANTH S K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

This CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 of BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CRl.a.NO.96/2024 (ANNEXURE -F) DTD. 11.07.2025 PASSED

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that both the complainant and accused known to each other. In the month of May, 2016 the accused approached the complainant seeking hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- for her immediate financial exigencies. Considering the relationship between the parties, hand loan was given by the complainant on 05.05.2016 to the accused and in turn, the accused issued the subject matter of cheque. When the same was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Thus, notice was given and the same was returned with an

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

endorsement ‘not claimed’. The notice issued to the residential address of the accused was served on her but she failed to comply with the demand. Hence, complaint was given and cognizance was taken.

¶26

The accused appeared before the Trial Court. The complainant got marked the subject matter of cheque before the Trial Court and the same is not in dispute. Only defence of the accused that the complainant had taken signed blank cheque from the accused as a security towards loan which was borrowed by her. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that defence was not substantiated by placing any cogent material before the Court, the only documents placed before the Trial Court while adducing the evidence are Aadhar card, summons, order sheet and application and certificate in O.S.No.606/2018 at Ex.D1 to D5, except this, nothing was placed on record. Hence, the Trial Court accept the case of the complainant and comes to the conclusion that not

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

rebutted the case of the complainant under Section 139 of

¶31

N.I. Act.

¶32

The appellate Court also considering the

¶33

grounds which have been urged in the appeal particularly, in paragraph 24 comes to the conclusion that issuance of cheque is not in dispute and dishonour of the cheque is also not in dispute as well as issuance of notice was also not in dispute. Thus, the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶34

The records discloses that the specific defence

¶35

was taken that cheque was issued as a security when loan was availed but the same was not substantiated by leading cogent evidence. The scope of the revision is very limited. Only this Court has to examine the legality and correctness of finding of both the Courts. Unless the order impugned of both the Courts suffers from its legality and correctness, the question of exercising revisional jurisdiction does not arise. In the case on hand, issuance

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26505 CRL.RP No. 1868 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

of cheque is not in dispute and service of notice also not in dispute and the defence which was taken was also not substantiated. Hence, both the Courts have taken note of the same. Thus, I do not find any ground to exercise the revisional jurisdiction and there is no ground to admit the revision petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶40

Smt. Shravani v. Smt. B T Jayanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shravani v. Smt. B T Jayanthi

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh @ Nataraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs H Govindaraju

L.Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kurshid Banu Vs Smt Parahathunnisa

Sri.M.Raju, Vs Sri.Gopal Raje Urs

Harish Shetty Vs T. R. Srinivasa