Rathan Singh v. Sridhar

NC:(2026:KHC:22248( CRL.RP(No.(791(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RDDATED(THIS(THE(23 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(V(SRISHANANDA( CRIMINAL(REVISION(PETITION(NO.791(OF(2025( (397(Cr.PC)(/(438(BNSS))(

BETWEEN:(( ( , RATHAN,SINGH,

S/O,NARAYANA,SINGH,,, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,,, R/AT,D.NO.270,,NANDHI,BLOCK-3,,,

KSRP,POLICE,QUARTERS,,, MYSURU,-,570,002, …PETITIONER,

(BY,SRI.,RAJU,C,N.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:(

( , SRIDHAR, S/O,LATE,MADALA,GIRI,,,

AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS,, Digitallytisigned R/AT,D.NO.35,,"MANJUNATHA,NILAYA",,by0SOWMYA ST STDODDAMARAIAH 1 ,PHASE,,1 ,STAGE,,, Location:0HIGH GAYATHRIPURAM,,,COURT0OF KARNATAKA MYSURU,-,570,001, …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,RUPESH,KUMAR,S.,,ADVOCATE), , , THIS, CRL.RP, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 397, R/W, 401, CR.PC,(FILED,U/S,438,R/W,442,BNNS),PRAYING,TO,SET,ASIDE, THE, JUDGMENT, OF, CONVICTION, PASSED, IN, CRL.A, NO.373/2024,BY,THE,VII,ADDITIONAL,DISTRICT,&,SESSIONS, JUDGE, AT, MYSORE,, DATED, 03.02.2025, AND, IN, C.C.NO.2455/2018, DATED, 30.09.2024, BY, THE, III, JMFC, MYSORE,FOR,OFFENCE,P/U/S,138,OF,NI,ACT,,BY,ALLOWING, THIS,PETITION,IN,THE,INTEREST,OF,JUSTICE.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Raju.C.N, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

¶2Though the matter is listed for orders on interlocutory application, matter is taken up for admission, as the matter was not settled before the Mediation Center.

¶3Petitioner has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') in CC No.2455/2018, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.373/2024.

¶4The facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

4.1. A complaint came to be lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C alleging the commission of offence mentioned

under Section 138 of NI Act by contending that complainant and accused are acquainted with each other and accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in first week of December, 2017 to meet his financial necessities with a promise to repay the same within a short period of time.

¶5Towards repayment he issued a cheque bearing No.274083 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Mysuru, Mysuru branch which on presentation came to be dishonored with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'.

¶6Legal notice was issued by the complainant calling upon the accused to repay the same. Despite due service of notice, there was no compliance to the callings of notice which necessitated the complainant to seek action against the accused.

¶7Learned trial magistrate after securing the presence of the accused recorded the plea. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore, trial was held.

¶8In order to prove the case of the complainant, he got examined himself as PW.1 and placed on record 7 documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, comprising of original dishonour cheque, bank endorsement, office copy of legal notice, postal receipt, track consignment report, original sale deed dated

20.05.2006.

¶9As against the material evidence placed on record, accused got examined himself as DW.1 to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act.

¶10Learned trial magistrate after noting the answers exhibited in the cross examination stated that the accused was working in Police Department at Mysore and he knew the consequences of issuance of cheque and

dishonour thereof and also taking note of the fact that no action has been taken for the alleged misuse of the cheque, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 03.02.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.373/2024. Thereafter accused is before this Court.

¶11Sri.C.N.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, would contend that the cheque in question came to be issued in favour of a Finance Chit Company, which has been misused by the complainant and thus sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶12He would further contend that complainant failed to establish that he had lent sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused and therefore, conviction of the accused is bad in law and sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶13Today respondent's counsel absent.

¶14Accordingly, this Court has perused the material on record based on the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute that Ex.P1-cheque belongs to the accused and signature found therein is that of the accused. Admittedly, legal notice is not replied by the accused.

¶16Defence of the accused is that a cheque which was issued to the Finance Chit Company has been misused by the complainant. If it is so, accused being working in the Police Department, having known the consequences, should have taken positive action against the complainant for alleged misappropriation of the cheque. No such action is forthcoming on behalf of the accused.

¶17Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the conviction order recorded by trial magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference that too in the limited powers of revisional jurisdiction.

¶18Accordingly, the following: ORDER

(i) Revision petition is dismissed.

(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be withdrawn by the complainant under due identification.

(iii) Balance amount to be paid on or before

20.05.2026.

Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

NS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24