Allowed

Harish Ramakrishna Naik v. Sri. Rajashekhar H.B.

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2020CRL.RP/1383/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition and set aside the conviction and sentence. Permission for compounding was granted upon deposit of the fine amount, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Revised petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted; compoundable offence permitted to be compounded; fine deposited transmitted to trial court.

Harish Ramakrishna Naik Vs Sri. Rajashekhar H.B. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.R.P.No.1383/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1383/2016

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

HARISH RAMAKRISHNA NAIK S/O RAMAKRISHNA NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT HADIN VILLAGE BHATKAL TALUK UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT – 581 348 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.GIRIGOWDA C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI RAJASHEKHAR H.B. S/O BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ADVOCATE CUM AGRICULTURIST R/O GALIPURA, SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 201 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 07.06.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SAGAR IN C.C.NO.369/2010 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I.ACT AND ALSO ORDER DATED 28.07.2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DIST. AND S.J., SHIVAMOGGA SITTING AT SAGAR IN CRL.A.NO.140/2013, CONFIRMING THE

¶13

Crl.R.P.No.1383/2016

¶14

¶15

ORDER DATED 07.06.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL C.J., AND J.M.F.C., SAGAR IN C.C.NO.369/2010 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.369/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL C.J., AND J.M.F.C., SAGAR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Petitioner’s counsel physically present. Respondent’s counsel and respondent – Rajashekhar H.B. appeared before the Court digitally.

¶19

Respondent’s counsel has filed memo

¶20

reporting that the petitioner has deposited Rs.2,00,000/- and respondent is seeking leave to compound the case. The respondent is identified by Sri.Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel.

¶21

This petition is preferred challenging the

¶22

order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1383/2016

¶24

¶25

By the impugned order the petitioner was

¶26

sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.2,05,000/-. Out of which Rs.2,00,000/was ordered to be paid to the

¶27

respondent/complainant.

¶28

The offence under Section 138 of the

¶29

Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable one. Since the fine amount is deposited and the respondent is ready to compound the matter, permission is granted for compounding.

¶30

In view of the compounding of the offence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 07.06.2013 in C.C.No.369/2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sagar, confirmed by the First Appellate Court by the order dated 28.07.2016 in Crl.A.No.140/2013 are hereby set aside.

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.1383/2016

¶32

¶33

The petitioner is acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶34

The Registry shall transmit the fine amount deposited before this Court to the Trial Court.

¶35

Respondent is permitted to withdraw compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded to him. The remaining fine amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Harish Ramakrishna Naik v. Sri. Rajashekhar H.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Ramakrishna Naik v. Sri. Rajashekhar H.B.

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

Sri T Kumar Vs Sri K Chennakeshavulu

Hanumanthegowda Vs State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs Puttarangamma @ Rangamma

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohd Nazeer S/O Mohd Sab

M/S.National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri S Lokesh S/O Sher Bahaddur

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs P S Manjunath