Karnataka HC Dismisses Cheque Dishonour Revision With ₹1 Lakh Cost, Flags Accused's 21 Exemptions as Abuse of Process

Justice H.P. Sandesh found the accused had made the complainant appear 12 times for cross-examination without ever questioning him, then filed a complaint against his own advocate before approaching the High Court for a remand.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposing exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000 on him. Justice H.P. Sandesh, sitting singly, found that the petition was nothing but a continuation of the same conduct that had marked the proceedings below: the accused had secured 21 exemptions from the Trial Court while compelling the complainant to attend for cross-examination on 12 separate dates, and never once cross-examined him. The revision petition sought a remand, but the court refused, calling the case a “classic example of abuse of process.”

The Dispute Before the High Court

The complainant, Sri B. Ramesh, a resident of Sunticoppa in Kodagu district, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madikeri. His case was that in October 2018, the accused — Sri Muddura M. Somanna @ Prasad — approached him and borrowed ₹10,00,000 as a hand loan to meet an urgent financial commitment, promising to repay within four months.

Despite repeated demands, the amount was not repaid. On 14 February 2019, the accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. When presented, the cheque was returned with the endorsement “funds insufficient.” A legal notice dated 23 February 2019 was served on the accused, who gave no reply. A complaint was then filed, cognizance was taken, and the accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents at Exhibits P.1 to P.5. The accused led no defence evidence. The Trial Court convicted him, and that conviction was confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, by judgment dated 1 February 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2022. The revision petition before the High Court, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenged both the Trial Court conviction order dated 2 July 2022 and the appellate court's confirmation of it.

The Remand Prayer and the Order Sheet

Before the High Court, counsel for the revision petitioner sought a remand on the ground that P.W.1 had not been cross-examined at the Trial Court stage. To support the plea, the petitioner's own counsel filed a memo placing the order sheet before the court. That move proved counterproductive.

The order sheet showed that P.W.1 had been present before the Trial Court for cross-examination on twelve dates: 8 November 2019, 27 December 2019, 8 January 2020, 20 January 2020, 3 February 2020, 3 March 2020, 1 October 2020, 17 February 2021, 5 March 2021, 9 March 2021, 28 July 2021, and 15 November 2021. On each occasion, the cross-examination did not take place. Warrants had been issued against the accused on 7 September 2019, 3 March 2020, and 28 July 2021 because he had not even appeared before the court on those dates.

Across the proceedings, exemption applications were filed on 21 dates of hearing on behalf of the accused. The matter was also referred twice to the Lok Adalat — on 28 November 2019 and 20 November 2020 — and the accused did not pursue settlement on either occasion. An execution petition filed against him was allowed some 21 times.

Separately, the order sheet disclosed that counsel on record before the Trial Court had told the court on at least one occasion that there were no instructions from the accused. The accused had also filed a complaint against that very advocate before the Bar Council, and the High Court noted this complaint had been filed about two months before the revision petition was lodged in this court.

Why the Court Refused Remand

Justice Sandesh observed that the petitioner had himself brought the order sheet before the court, and that document went against him entirely. The complainant had been made to attend 12 times, exemptions were filed 21 times, and there was no cross-examination and no defence evidence. The counsel for the revision petitioner then contended that the cross-examination had not been done because the advocate below had not received instructions. The court did not accept this as a ground for remand.

The bench found that the accused had gone to the extent of filing a complaint against his own advocate at the Bar Council, even though that advocate had been appearing before the Trial Court, filing exemptions on his behalf, and had been very much present throughout. Filing a Bar Council complaint against that advocate and then seeking a remand before the High Court on the basis that no instructions had been given was, in the court's view, an attempt to convert deliberate non-participation into a grievance.

Justice Sandesh held that the conduct amounted to harassment of the complainant. The case had been filed in 2019 and disposed of by the Trial Court in July 2022 — almost three years later. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction in February 2024. Remanding the matter after all of that, and after the sequence of conduct recorded in the order sheet, was not a course the court was willing to take.

The court characterised the petition as “nothing but an abuse of Court process” and declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

Cost Recovery and Directions to the Deputy Commissioner

The revision petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000, directed to be deposited at the Registry of the High Court within two weeks from the date of the order, that is, by 6 August 2026.

The court went a step further on enforcement. If the cost is not deposited within two weeks, the Deputy Commissioner of Madikeri is directed to recover the amount as land revenue by initiating proceedings against the revision petitioner. The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Deputy Commissioner if the deposit is not made within the stipulated period.

Outcome

Criminal Revision Petition No. 636 of 2024 was dismissed at the admission stage. The concurrent conviction of Sri Muddura M. Somanna @ Prasad under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, recorded by the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madikeri, on 2 July 2022, and confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, on 1 February 2024, stands. Exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000 are payable to the Registry within two weeks, failing which the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri, is to recover the amount as land revenue.