SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36376

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
SRI.NARASIMHAMURTHY – Appellant
Versus
MUNIKRISHNAPPA – Respondent
CRL.P 14847/2025



CRL.P No. 14847 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14855 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14835 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14847 OF 2025 IN CRL.P No. 14855/2025 BETWEEN:

SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE BETTAKOTE POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 129.

Digitally …PETITIONER signed by (BY SRI. UDAYA KUMAR N.,ADVOCATE)

LAKSHMI T Location:

AND:

High Court of Karnataka MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT MOPARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

…RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF PRE CONDITION CRL.P No. 14847 of 2025 HC-KAR OF DEPOSIT OF 25 PERCENT OF THE FINE AMOUNT PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.15014/2025 WHILE SUSPENDING THE SENTENCE DATED 10.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DEVANAHALLI.

IN CRL.P NO. 14835/2025 BETWEEN:

SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/ON ARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE BETTAKOTE POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 129.

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAYA KUMAR N.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MOPARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF PRE- CONDITION OF DEPOSIT OF 25 PERCENT OF THE FINE AMOUNT PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.15013/2025 WHILE SUSPENDING THE SENTENCE DATED 10.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI.

CRL.P No. 14847 of 2025 HC-KAR IN CRL.P NO. 14847/2025 BETWEEN:

SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE BETTAKOTE POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 129 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAYA KUMAR N.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MOPARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203.

...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF PRE-CONDITION OF DEPOSIT OF 25% OF THE FINE AMOUNT PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.15012/2025 WHILE SUSPENDING THE SENTENCE DATED: 10.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF V TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRL.P No. 14847 of 2025 HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

In all these cases the parties are same.

2. Matter arise out of the proceedings initiated by respondent-complainant against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of three cheques issued by the accused to the complainant, each for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Trial Court vide its separate judgment 11.9.2025 passed in C.C.No.1562/2019, C.C.No.1563/2019 and C.C.No.1564/2019, convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine Rs.3,00,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The accused preferred separate appeals before the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.15014/2025, Crl.A.No.15012/2025 and Crl.A.No.15013/2025. While suspending the sentence imposed by the trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge directed the accused to deposit CRL.P No. 14847 of 2025 HC-KAR

25% of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court, within the statutory period. Assailing the said order the accused is before this Court.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that he has no documents to show that he had a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with him. It is therefore contended tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top