Dismissed

Lakshminarasimha Prasad v. S. Ramachandra

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021CRL.P/2802/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka rejected a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused to modify a conviction and compensation order in a cheque bounce case, upholding the lower courts' findings and conclusion that no intervention was required despite earlier settlement negotiations.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; orders of Revisional Court and Trial Court confirming conviction and compensation amounts are upheld.

Lakshminarasimha Prasad Vs S. Ramachandra — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2802/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LAKSHMINARASIMHA PRASAD S/O. D.MARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT:3RD CROSS, WEST OF COURT ROAD B-BLOCK, PWD COLONY CHAMARAJNAGAR CITY & DISTRICT - 571 31

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

S.RAMACHANDRA S/O. LATE N.SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT: "SIRIYOGA" NANJANGUDU ROAD ADJACENT POLYTECHNIC HOSTEL, CHAMARAJNAGAR CITY & DISTRICT - 571 31

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. M.K.RAMESH GOWDA, ADV.)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2018 IN

¶15

¶16

CRL.RP.NO.641/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY CCH-66, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION IN C.C.NO.11714/2016 DATED 05.06.2017 PASSED BY THE XIII A.C.M.M., COURT AT BENGALURU, SENTENCE AND COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE ACCUSED BE ENHANCED TO RS.25 LAKSH AND THIS CRL.P. BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In this petition, petitioner is seeking for modification of

¶20

the order passed by the Revisional Court in Crl.RP.No.641/2017 dated 05.11.2018 whereby, confirmed

¶21

the order passed by the Court of 13th ACMM Court, Bengaluru in C.C.No.11714/2016 dated 05.06.2017.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner namely Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry, who is on record has been made

¶23

some ground in this petition seeking intervention. The grounds is that, the accused being the respondent herein took loan of Rs.8,60,000/- from the petitioner, who is a gravemen of the incident narrated in his private complaint

¶24

¶25

and whereby, launching criminal prosecution against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. But, the accused, who took the amount from him on 23.11.2012 and on 01.06.2013, agreed to pay the said sum with interest at 18% p.a. Thereafter, accused issued a cheque for clearing his loan amount and that cheque was presented by complainant for encashment. But it was returned with an endorsement issued by Bank as 'funds insufficient' in the account of the account holder. Based on the complaint launched by the complainant, the criminal prosecution has been initiated by following requisite conditions for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Subsequent to complaint by the complainant against the accused, the trial Court in C.C.No.11714/2016 held conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act dated 05.06.2017, which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order. But in this petition seeking for intervention in terms of the modification of the order passed by the Courts below and seeking direction to pay double the cheque amount. This

¶26

¶27

contention is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition for seeking intervention by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

The respondent namely Sri.Ramachandra engaged

¶29

the services of Sri.M.K.Ramesh Gowda, learned counsel in this petition. The respondent is accused before the trial Court in C.C.No.11714/2016 and the said case was ended with conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act with fine of Rs.14,00,000/- with default clause and also ordered compensation as provided under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. That out of the said fine amount, the accused shall be pay Rs.13,90,000/- to the complainant as compensation and remaining sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be defrayed to the State as a prosecution expenses.

¶30

At this point, it is relevant to refer some observations made by the Revisional Court. Admittedly, the loan amount is Rs.8,60,000/-. But there was some

¶31

¶32

negotiation between the complainant and accused. After negotiation, the complainant and the accused have arrived at settlement for Rs.12,75,000/- and for the said amount, the cheque in question was issued by the respondent, being arraigned as accused. Thereafter, cheque was presented and the same came to be dishonoured. Hence, the accused was convicted by the trial Court with a fine of Rs.14,00,000/-. However, the loan amount is Rs.8,60,000/-. There was negotiation of settlement of issue emerged between them and during negotiation, they were arrived at settlement for Rs.12,75,000/-. Accordingly, accused has issued a cheque, which is in question. For dishonouring of the cheque, the criminal prosecution has been initiated by the complainant against the accused by following requisite conditions of Section 138 of NI Act.

¶33

Section 138 of NI Act even though it is a penal

¶34

provision in the Section itself while imposing sentence in terms of period as well as a fine, it is a discretionary power.

¶35

¶36

The discretionary power is always be exercised judicially, judiciously and cautiously. But in the instant petition, there was a negotiation in respect of issue emerged between the complainant and the accused and the same was ended in arrival of settlement for Rs.12,75,000/-. But otherwise to say that for dishouring of the cheque, the cognizance has been arisen. Insofar as offence under Section 138 of Cr.P.C., cognizance has been arise twice. Firstly, pre-cognizance for following requisite condition in the Section itself to initiate criminal prosecution against the accused i.e., in respect of recording the period for initiation of criminal prosecution to prosecute the case against the accused. Secondly, it is postcognizance after initiation of criminal prosecution by following requisite conditions in Section 138 of Cr.P.C itself. Then, they follow the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to arrival of a conclusion. But the criminal prosecution so far as Section 138 of NI Act it is dual in nature. Initially, it should be civil in nature till disposal of the proceedings because of the reasons that Section 147 of NI Act has been

¶37

¶38

introduced by parliamentarian for make use of that provision for settle the issue, which is arisen between the complainant, who is graveman of the incident and the accused, who is graveman of the accusation. But in the instant case, there was some settlement arrived between the parties and accordingly, it was settled at Rs.12,75,000/-. But for dishonouring of the cheque, some sought of cognizance has been arisen. When once the proceedings of Section 138 of NI Act supposed to be ended in conviction, then, it would be turned into criminal in nature. Therefore, Section 148 of NI Act has been introduced and in such the proceedings, both the parties arrived for ended in settlement or compromise to make use of the said provision.

¶39

In the instant case, issue emerged in between the complainant and the accused ended in terms of a negotiation and arrived at settlement for Rs.12,75,000/-. But in the instant case, the complainant, who is gravemen of the incident narrated in his complaint and launched criminal

¶40

¶41

prosecution against the accused and the said case was ended in conviction and ordered for compensation in terms of Rs.13,90,000/- by exercising power under Section 357 of

¶42

Cr.P.C.. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason in this petition to seek intervention and whereby, the trial Court in C.C.No.11714/2016 has been arrived at right conclusion and similarly, the Revisional Court also arrived at right conclusion for consideration of the issues in terms of the criminal prosecution arisen between the complainant and the accused.

¶43

Therefore, it is deem it appropriate for even refer

¶44

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., that, there is nothing limit to exercise power which is termed as inherent power that is neither affecting nor effecting any order under this code, that is the

¶45

first limb of the said provision. The second limb of the aforesaid provision is to avoid the abuse of process of law and third limb of the said provisions are otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But, these three limbs of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are important objects neither the complainant nor

¶46

¶47

the accused, but it is applicable to both as where the complainant is the gravamen of the incident and similarly accused is the gravamen of the accusation made in the charge levelled against the him. Though the prosecution has initiated proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, accused is required to face trial of the offences leveled against them. However, the domain vested with the trial court for appreciation of evidence either oral or documentary evidence as under the relevant provision of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶48

8. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid reasons as

¶49

well as in the peculiar circumstances of this matter, it is deem it appropriate that this petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected.

¶52

¶53

ii) Consequently, order passed by the Court below in Crl.RP.No.641/2017 dated 05.11.2018 and whereby confirmed the order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.11714/2016dated 05.06.2017 are hereby confirmed.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Lakshminarasimha Prasad v. S. Ramachandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshminarasimha Prasad v. S. Ramachandra

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

Smt Kanyakumari Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishnakanth K Vs State by White Field Police

Sri Ujval Reddy K Vs State by Kengeri Police

M/S Perkin International Limited Vs M/S. Shivalika Leasing and

Syed Chman Shah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishna Murthy Vs State by Kumaraswamy Layout