Allowed

Sri R S Kulakarni v. Sri v Raju

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2021CRL.RP/275/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition. Upon filing a joint memo confirming the respondent's withdrawal of the difference in cheque and acceptance of payment, the Court compounded the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the convictionsby the Magistrate and Sessions Court were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

The joint memo is placed on record, the offence is compounded, convictions by Magistrate and Sessions Court are set aside, petitioner is acquitted, and respondent is permitted to withdraw deposited am

Sri R S Kulakarni Vs Sri v Raju — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.275 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri R.S.Kulakarni, S/o S.R.Kulakarni, Aged about 58 years, Postal Assistant K.R.Market Post Office, Corporation Building K.R.Market Opp. to Delhi Sweet, Bengaluru-560002. And also at R/at No.7/13, 1^st Floor, 1^st Stage, 3^rd Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560003.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri N.Suresha, Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri V.Raju, S/o Venkataramana, Aged about 49 years, R/at No.34/1, 8^th Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560003.

¶13

…Respondent (By Sri S.P.Sathish, Advocate )

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order and judgment dated 11.04.2016, passed by Hon’ble XX A.C.M.M., at Bengaluru in C.C.No.15821/2014 and set aside the order and judgment dated 12.02.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Court of the LXI Additional City Civil and Session Judge (CCH-62), Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.792/2016, confirming the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by Hon’ble XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.15821/2014 and etc.

¶16

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission , this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The accused has preferred this revision petition challenging the judgment of Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, CCH.62 in Crl.A.No.792/2016. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act by his judgment dated 11.4.2016 and the same was challenged by the petitioner in the appeal. Since the Sessions Court also confirmed the judgment of the Magistrate, the petitioner has approached this court by filing revision petition.

¶19

¶20

Today, the joint memo has been filed by the petitioner and the respondent. The memo is singed by the parties and also the respective advocates. In the memo, it is stated that the

¶21

respondent/complainant has agreed to receive total amount of Rs.3,54,000/- from the petitioner. Already an amount of Rs.2,04,000/- has been deposited in the trial court and for the balance of Rs.1,50,000/-, the petitioner has handed over a Demand Draft bearing No.807507 dated 7.12.2021 drawn on Canara Bank in favour of the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the respondent reports receipt of the said demand draft.

¶22

In view of the settlement, the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act has been compounded by the respondent/complainant. The joint memo is placed on record. The judgment of conviction passed by the Magistrate in C.C.No.15821/2014 and the judgment of

¶23

¶24

the Sessions Court in Crl. Appeal No.792/2016 are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶25

The respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in the court of

¶26

Magistrate.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Sri R S Kulakarni v. Sri v Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R S Kulakarni v. Sri v Raju

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. Kavya K M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shivaprasad Vs State by

The State of West Bengal by Vs the State of Karnataka by

Punith Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh @ Ekamabram Vs State of Karnataka

Mukkatira Neeth Aiyappa Vs the State by Ponnampet P S