Mrs Rinku Deshpande vs Sri B R Suhil Kumar Naidu

-1- NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 673 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

MRS RINKU DESHPANDE W/O MR. NITESH DESHPANDE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.123, 12TH FLOOR, TOWER-4 PEBBLEBAY APARTMENT, R M V II STAGE, NAGASHETTYHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 072. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE) AND:

SRI B.R.SUHIL KUMAR NAIDU S/O RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.185, 2ND G MAIN 11TH BLOCK, Digitally signed by NAGARABHAVI, ANUSHA V BENGALURU - 560 072. Location: High ...RESPONDENT Court of Karnataka (RESPONDENT - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED XX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.95/2018 DATED 11.06.2019 SO FAR IT RELATES TO CHEQUE BEARING NO.198447 (EX-P.2) AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1503/2019 DATED 07.04.2022. -2- NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging judgment dated 07.04.2022 passed by LXIV

Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru, in

Crl.A.no.1503/2019 confirming judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 11.06.2019 passed by XX Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C.no.95/2018,

this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Rakesh B. Bhat, learned counsel for petitioner

submitted that revision petition was by accused against

concurrent findings. It was submitted, on an allegation that

petitioner/accused was a friend of respondent/complainant had

obtained hand loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for family legal

necessities and for business purposes agreeing to return same

within two years with interest at rate of 1% per month, but

failed to return same and on demand had issued two post dated

cheques bearing no.293953 dated 23.10.2017 for

Rs.10,00,000/- and 198447 dated 23.10.2017 for

Rs.7,75,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Malleshwaram Branch,

Bangalore, which when presented for collection through -3- NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022

HC-KAR

petitioner's Banker - UCO Bank, Peenya, returned dishonoured

wit endorsement amount insufficient/payment stopped by

drawer.

3. It is further alleged that complainant had got issued

common legal notice in respect of both cheques on 22.11.2017,

which was served on accused on 23.11.2017, but accused

failed to reply or repay amount, thereby committing offence

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI

Act', for short), had filed private complaint under Section 200

of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('Cr.P.C', for short).

4. On appearance, accused denied allegation and

sought to be tried. Complainant examined himself as PW-1 and

got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Thereafter statement of accused

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied

incriminating material against him as false and led rebuttal

evidence, examining himself as DW.1 and Manager of IDBI

Bank as DW.2 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4.

5. It was submitted, defence setup by accused was

that there was repayment of Rs.13,00,000/- and accused was

due a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- only and signature on one of

cheque was denied and disputed. DW.2 deposed about -4- NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022

HC-KAR

signature on Ex.P1 - cheque differing from Bank records.

Considering same, trial Court passed order of conviction only

insofar as second cheque no.198447 and acquitted accused

insofar as first cheque. Accused was directed to pay fine

amount of Rs.9,20,000/- and in default undergo simple

imprisonment for eight months. Aggrieved thereby, accused

preferred Criminal Appeal no.1503/2019 before Appellate

Court.

6. Main ground urged before Appellate Court was

about maintainability of common complaint in respect of two

cheques by issuing common demand notice. It is contended

that without proper appreciation, appeal was dismissed.

7. Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case of Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen

Noorul, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2019, learned

counsel submitted Hon'ble Supreme Court had on exhaustive

review of legal position held interpretation of words "said

amount of money" occurring in Section 138 of NI Act, could

only mean amount mentioned in cheque and in case of

variation between amount demanded and mentioned in cheque, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022

HC-KAR

demand notice would be rendered defective and consequently

conviction cannot be sustained.

8. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused

impugned judgments of Trial Court and Appellate Court.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit

Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr., reported in (2012) 9

SCC 460, held scope for interference with concurrent order of

conviction in revision petition would be limited to examining

whether order of conviction is infraction of statutory provision

or suffer from perversity.

10. Challenge herein is as per complainant's case,

accused had borrowed total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from

complainant and agreeing to repay same within two years with

1% of interest. And on demand for repayment, had issued two

cheques one for Rs.10,00,000/- and another for Rs.7,75,000/-.

In legal notice issued at Ex.P5, demand made for a

consolidated amount of Rs.17,75,000/-. And there was

discrepancy insofar as signature on Ex.P1 - cheque as deposed

by DW.2 leading to acquittal insofar as Ex.P1 - cheque and

conviction only on Ex.P2 - cheque. As amount mentioned in

Ex.P2 - cheque was Rs.7,75,000/-, but in Ex.P5 - demand -6- NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022

HC-KAR

notice was for Rs.17,75,000/-, ratio laid down in Kaveri

Plastics's case (supra) would be attracted and conviction

rendered unsustainable.

11. In her deposition as DW.1, accused admitted

knowing complainant and borrowing Rs.20,00,000/-. She

however claimed to have returned Rs.13,00,000/- by cash and

claimed balance payable was only Rs.7,00,000/- and produced

acknowledgment as Ex.D1. She dispute her signature on Ex.P1

- cheque and claimed that it was fraudulently obtained from her

company. She deposed that she had instructed for presenting

of Ex.P2 - cheque some time later as there was insufficient

balance and dishonor was because Ex.P2 was presented before

instruction of accused. Thus, there is categorical admission by

accused about issuance of Ex.P2 - cheque to complainant with

insufficient funds in account.

12. Perusal of Ex.P5 - legal notice would reveal that

complainant had stated particulars of both cheques in para-2

but demand was for total amount of both cheques. Ground now

urged is that due to acquittal of accused in respect of Ex.P1 -

cheque on ground of discrepancy in signature, amount

demanded would not match with cheque amount in Ex.P2. -7-

NC: 2025:KHC:41158 CRL.RP No. 673 of 2022

HC-KAR

13. In view of admission by accused that Ex.P2 -

cheque was issued for legal recoverable debt to complainant

and issuance of cheque with knowledge about insufficient funds

in her account, merely on ground that demand was of amount

covering both cheques, it cannot be held that demand was

defective in view of acquittal in respect of one of cheques.

14. Under above circumstances, ratio laid down in

Kaveri Plastics's case (supra) would not attracted. Grounds

urged by petitioner to escape liability are too hyper technical

and not meritorious. Hence, revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25