Allowed

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

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2020CRL.RP/100235/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner after both parties filed a joint application to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court allowed the compounding subject to the payment of a settlement amount and a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted. The petition was disposed of allowing compounding of the offence subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 cost.

A.K. Lokesh S/O Samadeepa Vs C. Vishwanath S/O Late C… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

Digitallysigned byVISHAL NPATTIHALDate:2020.12.2215:56:12+0530

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100235 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

A.K.LOKESH S/O.SAMADEPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT HALEKAILU VILLAGE JAGALUR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

C.VISHWANATH S/O.LATE C.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT BHEEMASAMUDRA VILLAGE KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 201 ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SHRI M.S.HARAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.02.2019 PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI,

¶15

¶16

SITTING AT HOSAPETE IN CRL.A.NO.5019/2017 AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.04.2017 PASSED BY THE JMFC AT KUDLIGI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.4/2016 THEREBY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE N.I.ACT AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kudligi in Criminal Case No.4/2016 dated 07.04.2017 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,03,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid as a compensation to the complainant and remaining amount of

¶20

¶21

Rs.3,000/- to be confiscated to the account of the State.

¶22

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) in Crl.A.No.5019/2017, which has confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court.

¶23

Brief facts leading to filing of this case are as under:

¶24

The complainant and the accused are known to each other and they are friends. On 30.07.2014, the accused approached the complainant and obtained hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) as he had certain financial constraints with a promise that he would return the same within a period of three months and on the same day, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.862885 for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant.

¶25

¶26

On presentation of the cheque to Bank, the

¶27

said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reason ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, complainant got issued legal notice to accused on 29.11.2014, despite receipt of legal notice, the demanded amount was not paid by accused. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶28

On cognizance being taken, presence of

¶29

accused was secured before Court and he was enlarged on bail. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove guilt of accused, complainant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and closed his side. Thereafter statement of accused was recorded as required under section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein accused denied all allegations and incriminating evidence against him. However accused did not lead

¶30

¶31

any evidence nor produced any documents on his behalf.

¶32

After going through entire materials, both oral and documentary, trial Court came to the conclusion that complainant has proved guilt of accused and accordingly convicted accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered him to pay fine of Rs.2,03,000/and out of said fine amount, Rs.2,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to accused and remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- to be credited to State. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction, accused preferred an appeal before III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hospete, in Crl.A.No.5019/2017.

¶33

On careful re-appreciation and re-evaluation of entire material, both oral and documentary, appellate Court came to conclusion that complainant had established existence of legally enforceable debt

¶34

¶35

and that cheque was issued in lieu of discharge of said legally enforceable debt and further held that trial Court has rightly convicted accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and hence did not find any reason to interfere with the said judgment. Accordingly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by trial Court.

¶36

Before this Court, at the stage of admission,

¶37

both parties have jointly filed an application under section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act seeking to compound the offence as both parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves. As wisdom has prevailed on both parties finally to put an end to litigation, have amicably resolved the dispute and entered into a compromise between each other. As the present dispute between parties is commercial in nature and section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act being a regulatory offence, it is necessary that

¶38

¶39

these offences are encouraged to be compounded by

¶40

parties.

¶41

In view of the fact that petitioner and

¶42

respondent, accused and complainant have filed an application to compound the offence, I do not find any need to adjudicate the matter on the merits. On perusal of application filed by both parties, it is seen, both parties have settled the matter for full and final amount of Rs.1,65,000/-.

¶43

Petitioner/accused herein has agreed to pay Rs.1,65,000/- towards full and final settlement and in pursuance to the same, he has already deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5019/2017 which has been withdrawn by respondent/complainant. Petitioner/accused has also paid remaining agreed amount of Rs.65,000/- which is also accepted and acknowledged by respondent/ complainant. The application for compounding the matter has been signed by respective parties namely

¶44

¶45

petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant. It is also signed by learned counsels representing the parties respectively.

¶46

Both parties i.e., petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant are present before the Court. They admit contents of application. Respondent/accused admits receipt of Rs.1,65,000/in all towards full and final settlement towards fine amount ordered by trial Court. Respective learned counsels have identified the parties.

¶47

Petitioner/accused and respondent/ complainant have also filed their respective affidavits sworn to before the notary. Identity of parties is not in dispute. In view of the fact that parties have amicably settled and resolved the dispute, it is in the better interest of justice that same is permitted to be compounded and so also the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for compounding the offence under section 147 of the

¶48

¶49

Act. There is no legal impediment for this Court to entertain application for compounding, as parties have amicably settled the dispute and intend to put an end to this litigation.

¶50

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.

¶51

On hearing both learned counsels for imposition of cost, it is submitted that petitioner/accused is an agriculturist and in the present pandemic COVID-2019 situation, it is difficult to eke out source of money to make further payment of cost which is concurred by learned counsel for respondent/complainant that due to

¶52

¶53

pathetic financial situation of petitioner/accused, he has agreed for settlement of dispute for lesser amount than the fine amount ordered by trial Court. Therefore considering financial situation and present condition of petitioner/accused, I deem it proper to impose reasonable cost in the present situation. Application filed for compounding the offence deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

Judgment of conviction dated 7.4.2017, passed by the Court of JMFC, Kudligi, in C.C.No.4/2016, convicting and sentencing petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and confirmed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hospete in Crl.A.No.5019/2017 is hereby set aside.

¶56

Petitioner/accused is acquitted of all charges.

¶57

¶58

Petition is disposed of in accordance with terms of application filed for compounding and also subject to condition that petitioner/accused shall deposit cost of Rs.5,000/- to the State Legal Service Authority, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

LB/Mrk/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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

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