IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 915 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHASHANK .K

S/O KASHINATH .K.R

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

NO. 16, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS,

PIPELINE ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA,

BENGALURU - 560 040.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MAHENDRA .G, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S CANFIN HOMES LIMITED,

HAVING CORPORATED OFFICE AT

NO. 29/1, 2^ND FLOOR,

M N KRISHNA RAO ROAD,

BASAVANAGUDI,

BENGALURU - 560 004.

REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANGER HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT

Digitally signed

NO. 29/1, 1^ST FLOOR,

by ANUSHA V

M N KRISHNA RAO ROAD,

Location: H igh BASAVANAGUDI,

Court of

BENGALURU-560 004.

Karnataka

REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY .D, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W

442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.244/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-64) AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2021 IN CC.NO.6864/2016 BY THE XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND

ACMM COURT, AT BENGALURU (SCCH-26).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging order dated 21.06.2023 passed by LXIII Addl.

City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.no.244/2021 confirming order dated 24.02.2021 passed by XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT & ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.6864/2016, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri G Mahendra, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, petition was against concurrent erroneous findings convicting petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. It was submitted, respondent (complainant) was a registered Company carrying on business in housing finance. It filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that accused had obtained financial assistance in a sum of Rs.26,87,000/- for purchase of flat at Polaryk Enclave on EMI of Rs.28,456/-. It was further alleged that accused had Rs.17,0736/- as overdue amount and therefore, on 28.08.2015 complainant got issued demand notice. On receipt, accused approached complainant and issued cheque no.000012 dated

07.10.2015 for Rs.28,54,726/- drawn on HDFC bank ltd., Basavanagudi Branch, Bengaluru, which when presented for collection, returned with endorsement 'funds insufficient' on 08.10.2015. And even when complainant got issued demand notice dated 03.11.2015 served on accused on 06.11.2015, accused had failed to discharge liability and thereby committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' for short).

3. It was submitted, on appearance, accused denied allegations and sought trial. Complainant examined its Chief Manager as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P11. On appraisal of incriminating material, which was denied, statement was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D.4. 4. It was submitted, main contentions of accused before trial Court were, firstly, cheque in question was submitted as security for payment of EMI. Secondly, loan was taken for purchase of flat in name of accused. However, it was later found that said flat was riddled in litigation with several persons staking claim over it, as a result of which he was not in possession. It was submitted, even Rs.16,00,000/- remitted by petitioner was not accounted for. And without mentioning about above proceedings, complainant had initiated separate proceedings on cheque no.000009 for Rs.1,08,94,370/-, which was fraudulent in nature. It was submitted, both Courts had failed to appreciate same. Therefore, impugned judgments called for interference.

5. ON other hand, Sri Narayana Swamy, learned counsel for respondent opposed petition.

6. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record.

7. This revision petition is by accused against c