Allowed

Narasinhamurthy.R.Mundgod v. Shridhar Krishnamurthy Bhat

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2020CRL.RP/100051/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petitioners application to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentenced the petitioner, leading to acquittal, following an amicable settlement and payment of the agreed amount.

What did the court decide?

The application for compounding was allowed; the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside; the petitioner was acquitted; the order was conditioned upon a cost deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the St

Narasinhamurthy.R.Mundgod Vs Shridhar Krishnamurthy Bhat — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100051/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NARASINHAMURTHY R. MUNDGOD AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, EWS 742, 1^ST CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶9

….PETITIONER.

¶10

(BY SHRI SANTOSH D. NARAGUND, ADVOCATE.) AND:

¶11

SHRIDHAR KRISHNAMURTHY BHAT AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 225/B, 5^TH CROSS, RENUKA NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶12

….RESPONDENT.

¶13

(BY SHRI S.S.NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE.)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 4.1.2016, PASSED BY JMFC-I COURT, HUBBALLI, IN C.C.NO.1472/2013 WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI, IN CRL.A.NO.20/2016 BY JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2019, ETC.,.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This revision petition is preferred by accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.1.2015, passed by JMFC-I Court, Hubballi, in C.C.No.1472/2013, convicting accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which is confirmed by V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, in Crl.A.No.20/2016, by judgment dated 18.10.2019. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/accused is before this Court challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of judgment of both Courts.

¶19

The matter is listed today for

¶20

admission. Petitioner has filed an application under section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 320 of Cr.P.C., seeking to compound the offence as both parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves.

¶21

In view of the application being filed for compounding the offence, I am of the opinion that

¶22

¶23

this matter would not require adjudication on merits of the case. Therefore, application for compounding the offence is to be considered.

¶24

On a careful perusal of application filed by petitioner, it is noticed that parties have amicably settled the matter for a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- towards full and final settlement. Petitioner has agreed to pay the said amount to close the case. As wisdom has prevailed between complainant and accused, finally they have to put an end to the litigation.

¶25

Application filed by petitioner is by an affidavit of Narasimhamurthy who is present before the Court. The contents of affidavit states that petitioner is agreeable for resolve the dispute and is willing and agreeable to pay a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- towards full and final settlement of dispute. Accordingly petitioner has paid Rs.2,65,000/- to respondent by way of bank transfer through google pay to the bank account of respondent on 21.4.2020.

¶26

¶27

Respondent who is present before the

¶28

Court confirms credit of Rs.2,65,000/- to his bank account. Petitioner also states that today he has paid Rs.20,000/- by way of cash to respondent which respondent has received and he acknowledges the same. Petitioner further stated that balance amount of Rs.82,000/- is already deposited by him before trial Court and he has no objection for respondent to withdraw the said amount. Affidavit is sworn to before Notary and petitioner has signed the same. Learned counsel for petitioner has identified signature of petitioner and identified petitioner who is present before the Court.

¶29

An affidavit is also filed by respondent/ complainant Shridhar Krishnamurthy Bhat, who has confirmed the terms of settlement agreed between parties and has agreed to compound the offence. In his affidavit he has stated that he is agreeable to receive Rs.3,65,000/- towards full and final settlement of dispute. Out of the said

¶30

¶31

amount, he has received Rs.2,65,000/on 21.4.2020 by way of bank transfer and Rs.20,000/- by way of cash today. Respondent is agreeable to withdraw Rs.82,000/deposited before trial Court.

¶32

As parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves, in order to put an end to the litigation, they filed the present petition under section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 320 of Cr.P.C., to compound the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶33

I do not find any legal impediment to

¶34

allow the application and compound the offence as the same is contemplated under the Act and parties are willing to resolve the dispute. It is the duty of this Court to encourage such settlement as the offence under section 138 of the Act is a regulatory offence arising out of commercial transactions.

¶35

¶36

Both petitioner and respondent are present before the Court. They have agreed to the terms and conditions of compromise petition and to compound the offence. In view of the above terms and conditions, compounding application deserves to be allowed.

¶37

As per directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 663 , it is stated that if parties agree to settle the matter themselves, the same should be encouraged and matter should be disposed of with a condition to deposit certain cost to the State Legal Service Authority. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Application filed under section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 320 of Cr.P.C., for compounding the offence is allowed.

¶40

¶41

(ii) Judgment of conviction dated 4.1.2015, passed by the Court of JMFC-I Court, Hubballi, in C.C.No.1472/2013, convicting and sentencing petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and confirmed by V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi in Crl.A.No.20/2016, by judgment dated 18.10.2019 is hereby set aside.

¶42

(iii) Petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶43

(iv) Petition is disposed of in accordance with terms of application filed for compounding, subject to condition that petitioner/accused shall deposit cost of Rs.25,000/- to the State Legal Service Authority, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.

¶44

(v) Respondent is permitted to withdraw Rs.82,000/- deposited before trial Court. Trial

¶45

¶46

Court shall refund the amount of Rs.82,000/- to respondent.

¶47

(vi) Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Mrk/-

Narasinhamurthy.R.Mundgod v. Shridhar Krishnamurthy Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narasinhamurthy.R.Mundgod v. Shridhar Krishnamurthy Bhat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramappa S/O. Hanamappa Gadagi Vs the Chief Administrative Officer

Chetan S/O. Harish Saliyan Vs Dundappa S/O. Basappa Dundappanavar

Harish S/O Basava Bangera Vs Dundappa S/O Basappa Dundappanavar

Hanumantappa S/O Shankarappa Sistegar Vs Muttanna S/O Gurulingappa

Shivageeta W/O. Dakshinamurthy Hiremath Vs Savita Chandrashekhar

Kumar S/O Ashok Kadam Vs the State of Karnataka through