Dismissed

Sri Ganesha D v. Sri Ramachandra a Shet

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2026CRL.RP/862/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentencing under the Cheque Bounce Act. The petitioner argued that execution proceedings were pending and terms of compromise were not honoured. The Court found no rebuttal evidence was provided and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Conviction and sentence confirmed.

Sri Ganesha D Vs Sri Ramachandra a Shet — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:26883 CRL.RP No. 862 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.862 OF 2026

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI GANESHA D S/O DURGAPPA B AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT SRI. BHADRAKALI SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA SRIRAMPURA BADAVANE SAGARA NAGAR-577401

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI RAMACHANDRA A SHET S/O ANANTHA SHET AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT SOMANATHA NILAYA SHIVAJI ROAD, SAGARA TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 24.04.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF V ADDL. DISTRICT AND

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:26883 CRL.RP No. 862 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SESSIONS JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA (SITTING AT SAGARA) IN CRL.A NO.10079/2025 AND ETC.

¶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

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

¶24

2. The case of the complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused had approached the complainant for advance of a friendly loan of Rs.25,00,000/- in the year 2022 and accordingly, loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was advanced and the accused promised to repay the same. But he did not pay the amount as agreed. 138 proceedings was initiated for dishonour of the cheque. During the course of judicial proceedings, there was a compromise, wherein the accused tendered cheques for an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- giving four cheques for Rs.5,00,000/- each and a cheque for Rs.2,00,000/mentioning different dates 30.08.2023, 30.09.2023, 30.10.2023, 30.12.2023 and 15.01.2024 with an assurance that those cheques will be honoured. The accused gave the said

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26883 CRL.RP No. 862 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

cheques towards the full and final settlement. The accused had paid the cash of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant towards the cheque bearing No.000023 dated 30.08.2023 and received back the said cheque and requested the complainant to present the remaining cheques for presentation on the mentioned dates. On presenting the same, the cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, notice was given and thereafter, once again 138 proceeding was initiated. The Trial Court considered the material available on record, particularly the cheques issued in terms of the compromise and the same were not honourned. The accused even not led any defence evidence before the Trial Court except marking of the documents Exs.D.1 and 2 and the accused examined himself as D.W.1. The Trial Court considering that those cheques are issued in connection with judicial proceedings, convicted and sentenced the accused.

¶28

3. The same is challenged in Crl.A.No.10079/2025. The Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:26883 CRL.RP No. 862 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused. The learned counsel submits that already execution proceedings was initiated in Ex.No.24/2025 and the Trial Court failed to consider the document Exs.D.1 and 2. Hence, this Court has to exercise the revision jurisdiction.

¶33

5. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, at the first instance when the cheque for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was given, the same was bounced and criminal proceedings was initiated, wherein a compromise was entered and the accused issued different cheques and out of that, only one payment was made by cash and subsequently, the remaining cheques, which were presented were dishonored and hence, once again one more round of 138 proceeding was initiated against this petitioner. Both the Courts considering the material available on the record, comes to the conclusion that there is no any rebuttal evidence except marking of documents Exs.D.1 and 2 and those two documents also will not come to the help of the petitioner/accused. When such material is available on record, I do not find any ground to

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:26883 CRL.RP No. 862 of 2026

¶35

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

admit the appeal and suspend the sentence and this is a second round of litigation to recover the amount, which was advanced earlier to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and compromise was also taken place in the earlier 138 proceedings. Hence, no

¶38

ground is made out.

¶39

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶40

following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The criminal revision petition is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶44

Sri Ganesha D v. Sri Ramachandra a Shet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ganesha D v. Sri Ramachandra a Shet

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

Mohammed Khalid Vs the State by the Station House Officer

Arvind Singhal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T S Basavaraju Vs Smt H G Savitha

H S Jayakumar Vs M R Chandru

Mr Keshav Das Vs Mr Kumbala Padhbhanabha

Mr. Kunhi Moosa., Vs Mr. Syed Asad Ahmed