Allowed

N N Chikkanna @ Kumar v. Sri B Krishnappa

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2020CRL.RP/1033/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and acquitted the appellant. The court held that since the respondent compounded the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act via a registered complaint settlement, the impugned conviction and sentence were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is allowed; the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside and the petitioner/appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 138 N.I. Act.

N N Chikkanna @ Kumar Vs Sri B Krishnappa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

1 Crl.RP.No.1033/2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K S MUDAGAL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1033/2016

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

N.N.Chikkanna @ Kumar, S/o Nagaraju, Aged about 35 years, Gummasandra village, Kasabha Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar Dist. 562 120. ... PETITIONER (BY Sri.Kumara K.G, Advocate) (P/H)

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri.B.Krishnappa, s/o late Boraiah, Aged 57 years, No.28/A, 5^th Main, Kathriguppa East, BSK 3^rd Stage, Bangalore 560 085. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri.G.Lakshminarayana, Advocate For Sri.Gangaiah, Advocate ) (P/H)

¶9

This Crl.RP is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.PC praying to set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the XII ACMM, Bangalore in CC.No.43432/2010 dated 16.12.2015 and judgment dated 28.6.2016 passed by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-67) in Crl.A.No.35/2016 by allowing this Crl.RP.

¶10

¶11

2 Crl.RP.No.1033/2016

¶12

This Crl.RP coming on for Orders through physical hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Both counsel and the respondent – B.Krishnappa

¶15

s/o late Boraiah are present.

¶16

In view of the appearance of respondent, the

¶17

police report does not survive for further consideration and disposed of accordingly.

¶18

The respondent is duly identified by his

¶19

counsel. He submits memo reporting that he has

¶20

received the entire cheque amount and has compounded the offence.

¶21

Petitioner’s counsel also has filed a memo

¶22

reporting the settlement of the matter between the parties in OS.No.539/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Magadi, which is a parallel proceedings to this. He has produced the certified copies of the order sheet,

Crl.RP.No.1033/2016

compromise petition and compromise decree in

¶27

OS.No.539/2014.

¶28

As per Section 147 of N.I Act, the offence

¶29

under Section 138 of N.I Act is compoundable one. In

¶30

view of the complainant/respondent compounding the matter, the petition is allowed.

¶31

The impugned order of conviction and sentence in CC.No.43432/2010 passed by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and confirmed by the first appellate court in Crl.A.No.35/2016 is hereby set aside.

¶32

The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of N.I Act.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

¶35

N N Chikkanna @ Kumar v. Sri B Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N N Chikkanna @ Kumar v. Sri B Krishnappa

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

B R Sudheer Kumar Vs Smt Pallavi

Ashoka Vs Yogachari K v

Doddaiah @ Mariswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sreee Charan Souhardha Vs Sri Shankarlal M Dugar

Purushotham @ Billal Vs State by

Surajdev Trading Company Vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee