1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

CRL.R.P.No.1053/2014

C/W

CRL.R.P.No.1052/2014

BETWEEN:

1.

MRS FIONA ALOYSIUS

W/O AUBREY ALOYSIUS

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

2.

MR. AUBREY ALOYSISUS

S/O AUBREY ALOYSIUS

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

BOTH PETITIONERS RESIDINE AT

AT NO.A-81, REGENCY PARK-1

DLF PHASE - 4, GURGAON - 122 002

HARIYANA STATE.

… PETITIONERS

(COMMON)

(BY SRI SIJI MALAYIL, ADV.)

AND:

MRS. ELFRIDA PINTO

W/O WILLIAM PINTO

AGED MAJOR

RESIDENT OF NO.60

C K GARDEN, COOKE TOWN

ST THOMAS POST

BANGALORE - 560 084.

… RESPONDENT

(COMMON)

(BY SRI USMAN, ADV.)

THESE CRL.R.Ps. ARE FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C.

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED

10.10.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING

2

OFFICER AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-

III

AT

MAYOHALL

UNIT,

BANGALORE

IN

CRL.A.NO.25166/2012 AND 25165/2012, RESPECTIVELY AND

THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.11.2012 PASSED BY

THE COURT OF THE XIV -ACMM IN C.C.NO.32606/2008 AND

32607/2008, RESPECTIVELY AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESEVED,

COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1.

These two criminal revision petitions are between the

same parties and arise out of the same transaction, and

therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel on both

sides, the petitions were clubbed, heard together and are

disposed of by this common order.

2.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3.

Facts leading to filing of these two revision petitions

narrated

briefly

are,

the

petitioners

herein

allegedly

approached the respondent-complainant in the year 2005

with a request to invest in their proposed company and they

promised that the respondent would get high returns on her

investment and being attracted by the representation made

by the petitioners, the respondent had invested an amount of

Rs.10 lakhs with the petitioners which was paid by her

3

through two separate cheques. The petitioners allegedly

promised to return 50% of the investment in the first year

and another 50% in the second year and the investment

amount was renewable for further period at the option of the

respondent. However, the petitioners had not kept their

promise, and therefore, the respondent repeatedly insisted

for payment of the returns as promised. Petitioners,

therefore, had issued five cheques for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs

each towards dividend/returns on the investment. The said

cheques were realized by the respondent. Thereafter, she had

approached the petitioners and demanded for return of

principal amount and the petitioners had, therefore, issued

two postdated cheques dated 31.03.2008 for Rs.5 lakhs each

in favour of the respondent. The said two cheques, on

presentation for realization, were dishonoured by the drawee

bank with an endorsement "payment stopped by the drawer".

The complainant, thereafter, got issued legal notice to the

petitioners on 15.05.2008 which was sent by RPAD as well as

certificate of posting. Inspite of service of the said legal

notice, the petitioners did not pay the amount covered under

the cheques nor had they issued any reply to the legal notice.

4

It is under these circumstances, the respondent had filed two

separate criminal complaints against the petitioners under

Section 200 Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the

Act'). After the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of

the offence alleged in the complaint, criminal cases were

registered against the petitioners in C.C.Nos.32606/2008 &

32607/2008.

4.

In the said proceedings, the petitioners who were

arrayed as accused nos.1 & 2 had appeared before the Trial

Court a