Allowed

Hanumantappa S/O Shankarappa Sistegar v. Muttanna S/O Gurulingappa

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2020CRL.RP/100092/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a compounding application filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was acquitted of cheque dishonour charges following an amicable settlement between parties, with a direction to pay legal costs to the State Legal Services Authority and withdrawal of earlier deposits by the appellate and tria

What did the court decide?

Compounding application allowed; petitioner acquitted; conviction and confirmed judgment set aside; costs ordered to KSLSA; deposited amount refunded.

Hanumantappa S/O Shankarappa Sistegar Vs Muttanna S/O… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100092 OF 2019

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

HANUMANTAPPA S/O.SHANKARAPPA SISTEGAR, AGE : 56 YEARS, OCC: HOSTEL SUPERINTENDENT, R/AT MANJUNATH NAGAR, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR IJARILAKAMAPUR, TQ. & DIST: HAVERI. (BY SMT.SUMANGALA A. CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE)

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

AND:

¶9

MUTTANNA S/O.GURULINGAPPA AGE : 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL. (BY SRI K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

... RESPONDENT

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.02.2019

¶12

¶13

PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN CRL.A.NO.15/2015 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 24.03.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GANGAVATHI IN CC.NO.996/2012 AND ETC.

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This revision petition is preferred by the accused aggrieved by the judgment passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal in Criminal Appeal No.15/2015 on 05.02.2019 confirming the judgment of conviction passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi in C.C.No. 996/2012 on 24.03.2015 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I.Act’) and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,30,000/-, out of fine amount, Rs.1,25,000/- is awarded as compensation to be paid to respondent/complainant, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent

¶18

have filed a joint application under Section 320 read with

¶19

¶20

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and read with Section 147 of the N.I.Act seeking to compound the offence as both parties have amicably settled their dispute.

¶21

In view of the fact that the present application is filed for compounding the offence, I am of the opinion that there may not be any requirement to adjudicate the matter on merits of the case.

¶22

On perusal of the application filed seeking to compound the offence, it is seen that petitioner and respondent have amicably settled their dispute and petitioner has agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to respondent, out of which, petitioner has already deposited Rs.62,500/- on 06.05.2019 vide D.D.No.953186 in C.C.No. 996/2012 and it is further stated that petitioner has paid remaining balance amount of Rs.57,500/- vide D.D.NO. 002167, dated 19.12.2020 to the respondent.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondent Sri.K.S.Patil admits the receipt of an amount of Rs.57,500/- today through demand draft as stated supra and also agrees and

¶24

¶25

affirms that Rs.62,500/- has been deposited before the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gangavathi in C.C. No.996/2012.

¶26

Respondent agrees to the settlement process agreed between parties as stated in this application as full and final settlement towards present dispute/present petition.

¶27

Both parties, petitioner as well as respondent have signed the application and have put their signatures to the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent have also put their signatures. Both parties affirm the contents made in the application and they have been identified by their respective counsels.

¶28

Petitioner has executed an affidavit which is duly notarized confirming the averments made in the compounding application. The learned counsel identifies the signature of petitioner in the affidavit sworn to before the notary.

¶29

¶30

Respondent/complainant has also filed an affidavit affirming the contents and settlement made in the application and affirming the receipt of Rs.57,500/- through demand draft and agreeing to settle the matter by receiving an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as full and final settlement towards the cheque in dispute. Learned counsel for respondent has identified the signature of respondent in the affidavit which is duly notarized. In view of the fact that both parties amicably settled their dispute and wisdom has prevailed on both parties to put an end to this litigation, in the interest of justice, this application for compounding deserves to be allowed. Provision of Section 138 of the N.I.Act being a regulatory offence arising out of the commercial transaction on any dispute, settlement made by parties will be encouraged to put an end to the litigation. There is no impediment for this Court to accept the compromise petition which is filed by way of compounding application and there is no legal bar to entrain present application, as Section 147 of N.I.Act provides for compounding of offence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that

¶31

¶32

this application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this application is allowed. However, in view of the directions and guidelines passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. , reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 , the petitioner will have to pay a cost of Rs.12,000/- to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad bench, Dharwad (for short ‘the KSLSA’) for compounding the offence at this stage. Hence, the Judgment of conviction passed by the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gangavathi in C.C.No.996/2012 which is confirmed by District and Sessions Judge, Koppal in Criminal Appeal No.15/2015 is hereby set aside. The respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.62,500/deposited vide D.D.No.953186 dated 06.05.2019 in C.C.No.996/2012. The trial Court is directed to disburse the said amount after due identification.

¶33

In view of the orders passed in WP.No.7338/2020, dated 10.07.2020, wherein the personal presence of parties is dispensed with due to the present Global pandemic Covid-

¶34

¶35

19 situation, the physical presence of the parties are dispensed. Learned counsel for both parties represented them respectively. Hence, the presence of both parties are dispensed.

¶36

Accordingly, this application is allowed subject to the terms and conditions of the compounding application and subject to following conditions :

¶37

Petitioner herein shall pay a cost at the rate

¶38

of 10% of the cheque amount to the KSLSA.

¶39

It is submitted that petitioner has already deposited Rs.5,000/- before the appellate Court. Appellate Court is directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner. Petitioner shall withdraw the said amount and deposit 10% of the cheque amount i.e., Rs.12,000/- before the KSLSA.

¶40

Petitioner is hereby acquitted of all the charges for the offence punishable under Section 139 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

¶41

¶42

In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/2019

¶43

does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed

¶44

of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46