Dismissed¶¶52

Sri Srinivas R @ Ramakrishnaiah Srinivas v. Sri Balakrishna G

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026CRL.RP/215/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 215 of 2026; decided 13.07.2026 by Justice H.P. Sandesh; criminal revision under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.PC (filed under S.438 r/w S.442 BNSS); revision against compromise-based concurrent orders of XIII ACJM (CC.No.23259/2022) and LII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Crl.A. No. 603/2025); joint memo settlement of Rs.3,30,000/- towards dishonoured cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- ('funds insufficient'); joint memo read as part and parcel of trial court order; revision not entertainable once matter settled per joint memo; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer to set aside the trial and appellate judgments and to acquit the petitioner was rejected as the revision petition was dismissed. ¶¶52

Sri Srinivas R @ Ramakrishnaiah Srinivas Vs Sri Balakrishna G — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:35506 CRL.RP No. 215 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 215 OF 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SRINIVAS R @ RAMAKRISHNAIAH SRINIVAS,S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.1108, 3RD MAIN, ‘E’ BLOCK 2ND PHASE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 018.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PREMNATH T N,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI BALAKRISHNA G S/O GANGANARASAIAH, AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.386, OPP, BET SCHOOL, HESSARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABANAVARA, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 015. REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER, SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. HARISH JAYAKUMAR,ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35506 CRL.RP No. 215 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DATED 04.11.2025 PASSED BY THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE BANGALORE IN CRL.A. NO. 603/2025 AND ALSO BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2024 PASSED BY THE XIII ACJM BANGALORE IN CC.NO.23259/2022. CONSEQUENTLY, BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for respondent.

¶24

The factual matrix of the case of complainant

¶25

before the trial Court is that accused and Girish R are brothers and absolute owners of property bearing Site No. 9 situated at Kareguddahalli Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bengaluru measuring 40x30 with residential building consisting ground and first floor. The accused and Girish R offered to sell the said property to the complainant in the month of December 2018 and after negotiation, complainant agreed to purchase the said property for total

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35506 CRL.RP No. 215 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

consideration of Rs.52,10,000/-. Pursuant to the same, the accused and Girish R executed the agreement of sale deed dated 10.01.2019 in favour of complainant and the complainant has paid advance amount of Rs.5,10,000/on different dates i.e., Rs.50,000/- paid by way of cheque and Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque and both cheque dated 14.01.2019 drawn on SBI Bank, Sultanpalya Branch, Bengaluru, Rs.60,000/- paid by way of cheque drawn on Corporation Bank, Nrupathunga Road and Rs.3,50,000/paid by way of cash on 10.01.2019 before witnesses. Both of them have received the advance amount of Rs.5,10,000/- and the agreed that they would execute the registered sale deed within 6 months from the date of execution of agreement. But despite the complainant's request to execute the sale deed and postponing the sale by evasive reasons. Thereafter, the legal notice was issued on 08.11.2019 to the accused and Girish R. The same was served on them and they approached the complainant on 22.12.2019 requesting to cancel the agreement of sale

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35506 CRL.RP No. 215 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

and they have executed another sale agreement in favour of third party without knowledge of complainant and agreed to return the amount of Rs.5,10,000/- and also liquidated damages of Rs.1,60,000/- as per agreement of sale totally amounting to Rs.6,70,000/-. The accused issued three cheques i.e., for Rs.50,000,/- Rs.4,30,000/and another for Rs.1,90,000/-. Those cheques are presented and the same are returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused but accused have not paid the Cheque amount and agreed to execute the sale deed. But again, the accused have failed to execute the sale deed. On being questioned, the accused issued Cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- and the same is presented for encashment. But the same is returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the complainant on 27.05.2022 and the same was duly served on accused on 28.05.2022. Inspite of that accused has failed to repay

¶32

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35506 CRL.RP No. 215 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the Cheque amount. Hence, the complainant filed complaint against the accused.

¶35

In order to prove the case, the SPA holder of complainant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked are Exs.P1 t P6. The trial Court took cognizance and also secured the accused. The accused appeared before the Court and entered into a compromise and filed a joint memo stating that both the parties are willing to settle the matter for amount of Rs.3,30,000/- towards full and final settlement for Cheque amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in three installments. The accused agreed to repay first installment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.07.2024 and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.08.2024 and on 16.09.2024, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cash/DD. The complainant agreed to receive the said amount in default of payment of settlement amount, the complainant is at liberty to initiate necessary legal action against the accused and requested to accept the joint amount and pass necessary order. Thereafter, taking into

¶36

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35506 CRL.RP No. 215 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

account the specific joint amount memo, the trial Court has passed order directing the accused to pay an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- as against Cheque amount and also made it clear that the accused has to pay the amount and inturn the same amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation and in default the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and also made it clear that joint memo submitted by both the parties may be read as part and parcel of the order. In terms of the joint memo, the accused has agreed to pay double the amount and the same is also challenged before the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.603/2025. The appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence on record, confirms the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner has filed this revision petition.

¶39

The grounds urged before this Court is that the trial Court and the appellate Court have committed an error in appreciating the material available on record. In fact, only when the petitioner got knowledge about the

¶40

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35506 CRL.RP No. 215 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

undue influence crept by the respondent in filing the joint memo against the petitioner too, despite the joint memo filed by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/-, the respondent initiated the proceedings against the brother Further, both the Courts have failed to take note of the factual aspects of the case, having filed the joint memo and committed an error.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that when the matter was pending before the Court, the accused came forward to file the joint memo and in terms of the joint memo, he has agreed to pay the amount and the trial Court also taken note of the joint memo and directed the accused to pay the amount and also made it clear that joint memo mentioned by both the parties read as part and parcel of the matter.

¶44

Having taken note of the factual aspects of the

¶45

case and also when the matter was settled between the parties in terms of the joint memo, the trial Court passed

¶46

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35506 CRL.RP No. 215 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

an order. But in terms of the joint memo, the same was

¶49

not complied with and appeal was also filed and the appellate Court also took note of the factual aspects of the case and when there was a joint memo before the matter was decided, i.e., to pay the double the amount and when

¶50

the trial Court also made it clear that joint memo was admitted by both the parties and read as part and parcel of this order. When the matter was settled between the parties in terms of the joint memo, the question of entertaining the present revision does not arise and hence,

¶51

I do not find any ground to entertain this revision.

¶52

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed .

¶53

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶54

SSD

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri Srinivas R @ Ramakrishnaiah Srinivas v. Sri Balakrishna G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivas R @ Ramakrishnaiah Srinivas v. Sri Balakrishna G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Annanagouda R H Vs Sri Aravindmurthy

Sri Annanagouda R H Vs Sri Aravindmurthy

Sri Chandra Shekar Vs Sri a Somanna Since Dead by His Lrs

Sri C S Nagesh Vs Smt. Puttajyothi C S

Mr a Muniraju Vs Mr N Nanjegowda

K N Sridevi Vs Anjanappa M G