Allowed

Smt Chikkamma v. Sri Lingaiah

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021CRL.RP/26/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and set aside the lower court orders after recording a joint memo wherein the parties compromised the dispute and the respondent consented to the acquittal contingent on payment terms.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2018 in Crl.A.537/2017 and the order dated 20.03.2017 in C.C.No.6794/2013 are set aside.

Smt Chikkamma Vs Sri Lingaiah — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.26 OF 2019

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT CHIKKAMMA, ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/AT NO. 80, 19TH CROSS, RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, (KEBBENAHALLA), BENGALURU 560091. ...PETITIONER

¶6

(BY SRI HARISHA A S, ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

SRI LINGAIAH S/O. LATE. LINGAIAH, R/AT NO. 177, 3RD BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, NEAR RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE PARK, BENGALURU 560072. …RESPONDENT

¶9

(BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR D, ADVOCATE)

¶10

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.537/2017 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-60) AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

¶12

¶13

DATED 20.03.2017 IN C.C.NO.6794/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE CHARGES WITH WHICH THEY STOOD CHARGE.

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Petitioner and respondent have filed a joint memo, wherein it

¶17

is stated that both of them have compromised their dispute as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the joint memo, which reads as under:

¶18

“The Petitioner and the Respondent herein most respectfully submits as follows:

¶19

That during the pendency of the above Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner and the respondent herein at the intervention of the elders, family members, well-wishers and friends had settled the dispute between them. The petitioner and the respondent have agreed to compromise the below mentioned terms and conditions.

¶20

The petitioner agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- of cheque amount. The Respondent also agreed for the same.

¶21

¶22

The Petitioner already deposited Rs.1,75,000/before the court below. The Respondent already took Rs.90,000/-.

¶23

The Petitioner has no objection to withdraw the already deposited amount of Rs.85,000/-.

¶24

The Petitioner agreed to pay remaining balance of Rs.1,75,000/- by way of installments on 10^th of every month in English calendar before court below by way of cash or account transfer. The Respondent also agreed for the same.

¶25

10.03.2021	Rs.20,000/-
12.04.2021	Rs.20,000/-
10.05.2021	Rs.20,000/-
10.06.2021	Rs.20,000/-
12.07.2021	Rs.20,000/-
10.08.2021	Rs.20,000/-
13.09.2021	Rs.20,000/-
11.10.2021	Rs.20,000/-
12.11.2021	Rs.15,000/-

¶26

If the Petitioner fails to pay the money on the above said dates then the Respondent has right to re-open / re-call the case.

¶27

Both the parties i.e., the Petitioner and the Respondent herein agree all the above said terms

¶28

¶29

and conditions. Hence respondent also has no objection to acquit the accused.

¶30

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to take this joint memo on record and pass an order in terms of the joint memo accordingly in the interest of justice.”

¶31

In view of the submission of both parties and their

¶32

respective counsels, joint memo is placed on record.

¶33

Since the parties have settled their dispute, the order

¶34

passed by the Courts below shall have to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Petition is allowed.

¶37

ii. The judgment and order dated 02.11.2018 passed in Crl.A.537/2017 by the LIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-60) and the judgment and order dated 20.03.2017 passed in C.C.No.6794/2013 by the XXIII Addl. Chief

¶38

¶39

Metropolitan Magistrate, Benglauru City, are setaside.

¶40

iii. If the petitioner fails to make payment on the dates mentioned in the joint memo, the respondent is at liberty to reopen the case and take necessary steps to initiate further

¶41

proceedings.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

BSR

Smt Chikkamma v. Sri Lingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chikkamma v. Sri Lingaiah

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 D Parameshwarappa S/O Dyamappa Vs State of Karnataka by Mayakonda Police Station

Jayesh Gowda G Vs M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd.

V K Venkatesh Vs H P Hanumantha Shetty

Sri Chinnappa Vs State by Hulimavu Police Station

Anand Babu Naidu Vs K Rajendran

Jeevan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka