IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 196 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SMT PARIMALA

W/O MOHAN,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.162,5^TH CROSS,

II MAIN ROAD, PRAKASHNAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 021.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI K. GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI P. NEHRU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. POORNIMA VIJAY KUMAR,

W/O VIJAY KUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

NO.128, 5^TH CROSS, L.N.PURAM,

Digitally signed bySRIRAMPURAM POST,

GEETHAKUMARI

BENGALURU - 560 021.

PARLATTAYA S …RESPONDENT

Location: High

Court of

Karnataka (BY SRI JAI PRAKASH RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE ENTIRE IMPUGNED ORDER AND JUDGMENT PASSED BY LEARNED XX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.30592/2015 DATED 02.05.2017 AND ORDER DATED 03.06.2021, PASSED BY LEARNED LXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN

CRL.A.NO.804/2017.

THIS PETITION IS 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 concurrent, erroneous judgment dated

03.06.2021 passed by LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.804/2017 confirming judgment dated 02.05.2017 passed by XX ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.30592/2015, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Govindaraj, learned counsel appearing for Sri P.Nehru, advocate for petitioner submitted that this revision petition is against concurrent findings convicting petitioner (accused) for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short).

3. It was submitted, proceedings were initiated in pursuance of complaint filed by respondent (complainant) under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1978 ('CrPC' for short) alleging that complainant and accused were well- known to each other and on 14.06.2015, accused had obtained hand loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to meet financial commitments and family inconsistencies promising to repay same within four months along with interest at 1% per month. On completion of said period, issued post dated cheque bearing no.561767 dated 14.10.2015 for Rs.2,60,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, APMC Yard Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection on 14.10.2015, returned dishonored with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 20.10.2015 and thereafter, even when demand notice got issued by complainant was served on 05.11.2015, accused failed to repay amount within time stipulated and on other hand, issued untenable reply on 17.11.2015, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied charges and sought trial. Thereafter, complainant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7. Thereafter, incriminating material was explained to accused and which were denied and his statement under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded. Subsequently, accused deposed as DW.1 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D3. It was submitted, though substantial defence denying transaction with complainant and contending that cheque was issued earlier to one Lakshmi as security for loan which was cleared. But, cheque was not returned and misused to file present case through complainant, denial of relationship of debtor and creditor, filing of private complaint against Lakshmi were taken, trial Court proceeded to pass impugned judgment based merely on statutory presumption.

5. It was submitted, in cross-examination, it was elicited that complainant was earning Rs.14,000/- per month and was required to pay Rs.20,000/- per annum towards college fees of her son and though complainant claimed that she had got sum of Rs.36 Lakhs by selling house in Chennai, said amount was shared between seven persons and complainant had admitted that she had got a house on lease for Rs.3 Lakhs and also performed marriage of her daughter would substantially dilute financial capacity of complainant to lend money and therefore, trial Court was not j