Allowed

Shiddalingappa S/O Basavanneppa Baligeri v. Iranna S/O Basavanneppa Baligeri

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2020CRL.RP/100019/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was disposed of by allowing the revision based on the parties' compromise. The petitioner paid Rs. 1 lakh to the respondent, leading to the quashing of the conviction and sentence by compounding the offence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted; Rs. 1 lakh order released to respondent; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 5,000 cost to State Legal Services Authority

Shiddalingappa S/O Basavanneppa Baligeri Vs Iranna S/O… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

VISHAL NPATTIHAL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

Digitallysigned byVISHAL NPATTIHALDate:2020.12.2215:57:01+0530

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100019 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIDDALINGAPPA S/O.BASAVANNEPPA BALIGERI, AGE : 46 YEARS, OCC : PRIVATE WORK/BUSINESS, R/O.BASAWESHWAR NAGAR, SHAPURPET, GADAG, TQ & DIST : GADAG.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT ROOPA CHINIWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.N.GULARADDI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

IRANNA S/O.BASAVANNEPPA BALIGERI, AGE : 60 YEARS, OCC : KIRANI BUSINESS, R/O.BASAWESHWAR NAGAR, SHAPURPET, GADAG, TQ & DIST : GADAG.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI M.M.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND I-J.M.F.C., GADAG IN C.C.NO.1991/2014 BY ITS ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN CRIMINAL APPEAL

¶16

¶17

NO.11/2017 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.07.2019 AND ACQUIT HIM FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present petition is filed by accused challenging the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and I-J.M.F.C., Gadag in C.C.No. 1991/2014 vide order dated 16.06.2017 which has been confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in Criminal Appeal No.11/2017 by order dated 29.07.2019, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I.Act’).

¶21

During pendency of this petition, wisdom has prevailed on both petitioner and respondent to settle the matter amicably between them and accordingly they have filed an application under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 147 of the N.I.Act to compound the offence herein. In view of the application filed for compounding the offence, it may not be necessary for this Court to dwelve into merits

¶22

¶23

of the matter. Respondent herein is none other than the elder brother of petitioner. Therefore, both parties have decided to maintain the cordial relationship with each other and hence have come forward to amicably settle the matter by way of compromise and they have filed present application for compounding of the offence.

¶24

On perusal of the application filed by both parties, it is seen that both parties have agreed to settle the matter for Rs.1,00,000/- towards full and final settlement.

¶25

Accordingly, petitioner herein has deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh by way of DD bearing No. 674498 dated 27.10.2020 drawn on State Bank of India, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Branch, Dharwad.

¶26

Respondent herein, who is Complainant before

¶27

the trial Court has no objection to receive Rs.1 lakh towards full and final settlement of the dispute, he has no objection to compound the offence and set aside the judgment of conviction passed by both the Courts. It is submitted that

¶28

¶29

the amount of Rs.1 lakh by way of DD has been deposited before this Court.

¶30

Application has been signed by both the parties, ie., petitioner and respondent herein, so also by their respective counsel. Petitioner has also filed an affidavit confirming to the contents made in the application for compounding the offence and has signed the affidavit, which is identified by the learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent – Complainant has also filed an affidavit confirming to the contents stated in the application for compounding the offence, which is identified by the learned counsel representing the respondent.

¶31

Both the parties, ie., petitioner and respondent, are present before the Court. On enquiry, respondent agrees to the terms of settlement and he has no objection in setting aside the order of conviction passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court.

¶32

In view of the fact that offence under Section 138

¶33

of NI Act arises out of a commercial transaction, which is

¶34

¶35

regulatory offence, any settlement agreed between the parties has to be encouraged by this Court to put an end to the litigation. There is also no impediment for this Court to accept the said settlement by way of an application for compounding the offence as Section 147 of NI Act provides for compounding the said offence. Therefore, I am of the view that application filed for compounding the offence deserves to be accepted.

¶36

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶37

order:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(1) Revision Petition is allowed.;

¶40

(2) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge & I-JMFC, Gadag in CC No.1991/2014 dated 16.06.2017 and confirmed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in Crl. A. No.11/2017 dated 29.07.2019 is hereby set aside.;

¶41

¶42

(3) Petitioner – accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act subject to payment of cost @ 5% of the cheque amount, amounting to Rs.5,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- is the cheque amount) to the State Legal Services Authority, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.;

¶43

(4) Respondent – Complainant is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is deposited by the petitioner before this Court.;

¶44

(5) Office is directed to release the said amount to the respondent – Complainant forthwith.

¶45

In view of disposal of the petition, pending application, if any does not survive for

¶46

consideration, accordingly same is also disposed of.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

CKK VK

Shiddalingappa S/O Basavanneppa Baligeri v. Iranna S/O Basavanneppa Baligeri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiddalingappa S/O Basavanneppa Baligeri v. Iranna S/O Basavanneppa Baligeri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh v. Pujari Vs Sidduraju K. J.

Rabdin Salim S/O Nagoor Pichai Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa S/O. Hanumanthappa Bhavi Vs State of Karnataka

A.K. Lokesh S/O Samadeepa Vs C. Vishwanath S/O Late C. Chandrashekar

Siddalingappa S/O. Basappa Panadi, Vs Mallikarjun B Mavalli

Shiddalingappa S/O. Basavanneppa Baligeri Vs Iranna S/O. Basavenneppa Baligeri