IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1164 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SMT. BHAVYASHREE S W/O NAGENDRA U AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O NO. 615, NEAR DEVEGOWDA PETROL BUNK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MITHUN KUMAR R.B, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by R AND:

MANJUNA THA Location:

HIGH COURT RAGHAVENDRA L C OF KARNATAKA S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA E AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O 44, 1ST CROSS, SHARAVATINAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 (FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.85/2024 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

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

***

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Mithun Kumar R.B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddanooru Vishwantha, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.639/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I.Act’), confirmed in Crl.A.No.85/2024 is the revision petitioner.

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

A private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., was lodged with the Jurisdictional Magistrate alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act by contending that the complainant, accused and her husband by name Nagendra for doing a business and in the business transaction among them, mother of the complainant by name Leela was also involved. During said tenure, the accused and her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the complainant on different dates. Those amounts were accumulated by the complainant by obtaining loan through his credit cards and also from borrowing money from his friend Sundaresh. The accused and her husband invested the said amount in their business and agreed to repay the same within a short span of time.

4. However, the business could not go on and there was an agreement in that regard on 05.02.2019 whereunder the amount payable by the accused person and her husband was crystallized in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and the same would be paid within a stipulated time.

5. After the agreement, the accused and her husband have issued total four cheques bearing No. 553251 dated 18.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, bearing No.553252 dated 20.03.2020 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, bearing No.553253 dated 21.04.2020 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Banagirinagar Branch, Bengaluru and yet another cheque bearing No.127867 dated 18.11.2019 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru.

6. In the agreement dated 05.02.2019, it has been stated that the accused and her husband undertook to repay the loan obtained by them from banks and others. Since the accused failed to make the payment, the complainant demanded repayment of the entire loan amount.

7. The accused also instructed the complainant to present the cheques for collection on 19.11.2019 and cheque bearing No.127867 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- dated 18.11.2019 drawn on Axis Bank was presented which returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’.

8. Immediately, the complainant approached the accused and her husband by issuing a notice on 21.11.2019 very next day after presentation of dishonour of such cheque. Then the accused and her husband approached the complainant and requested the complainant to represent the cheque for collection. The complainant believing their words, represented the cheque on 20.12.2019 for collection. But again the same got dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’.

9. Thereafter, the comp