Allowed

Mr. Ramakrishna Gowda v. Mr. Shaji Thomas

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2021CRL.RP/435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench allowed a criminal revision petition in a cheque dishonour case after accepting a joint compromise memo where the accused deposited sufficient funds and the complainant agreed to forgo claims, citing compounding under Section 147 NI Act.

What did the court decide?

Judgment convicting the accused is set aside; accused acquitted; conviction affirmed by Sessions Judge is also set aside; bail bonds cancelled.

Mr. Ramakrishna Gowda Vs Mr. Shaji Thomas — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.435/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. RAMAKRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O NEELAYYA GOWDA, R/AT KULANDY, ANIYOOR, NERIA POST AND VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K DISTRICT-574 228.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P.ANANTHA BHAT FOR SRI ABHINAV.R, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MR. SHAJI THOMAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O THOMAS, MANGALATHIL HOUSE, THOTATHADY VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K DISTRICT-574 228.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. ALLAH BAKASH.M., ADV.)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT, SENTENCE AND

¶15

¶16

CONVICTION AND THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2020 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.71/2019 BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.06.2019 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY IN CRL.CASE NO.515/2016 AND DISMISS THE CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPLICATION.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner by name Sri.Ramakrishna Gowda and respondent Sri.Shaji Thomas appeared through video conference stated that they are appearing through video conference from the Chambers of their trial court advocate one Dhananjaya at Belthangadi Taluk. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.P.Anantha Bhat representing on behalf of Sri.Abhinav R. for the revision petitioner and Sri.Allah Bakash M., learned counsel for the respondent are present before the Court physically and identified their respective parties appearing through online and filed a joint memo stating that they have compromised the case. The said memo reads as under:

¶20

¶21

"The above named petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant humbly submits as follows:

¶22

1. The complainant/respondent had filed the above case against the accused/petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The subject matter of the cheque involved in the above proceedings is Rs.66,400/- (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Only) which was issued by the accused herein in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the legally recoverable debt due and liable to be paid by him (accused) to the complainant.

¶23

2. The accused/petitioner has filed the present revision petition challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 07.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.71/2019 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore. The Lower Appellate Court dismiss the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.71/2019 vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2020 and confirms the judgment and order passed in

¶24

¶25

C.C.No.515/2016 before the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady. Hence, the accused/petitioner has filed the above revision petition.

¶26

3. The complainant/respondent has entered appearance in the above matter by filing vakalath. During the pending revision petition of the proceedings in the above matter, the accused/petitioner has undertaken/promised the complainant/respondent that he is ready and willing to pay/make good the aforesaid debt/liability in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, at the intervention of the Court and well wishers the parties have settled all their disputes and differences amicably with the following terms and conditions:

¶27

4. It is agreed between the parties that a total amount of Rs.33,600/- provided by directly depositing/remitting the same to the account of the complainant/respondent name i.e. Shaji Thomas by way of Demand Draft No.135117, Code No.592 dated 09.09.2021 of Karnataka Bank Ltd. Ujire Branch. The said photocopy of Demand Draft was handed over to respondent on

¶28

¶29

29.09.2021. The original Demand Draft will be handed over to respondent at the time of settlement before this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner/accused has already deposited amount of Rs.66,400/- before the lower court on 02.08.2019 in receipt No.294525. The copy of the receipt of money received is annexed to this present joint memo. The petitioner/accused would withdraw the said amount hand over the said amount to respondent/complainant.

¶30

5. The respondent has agreed for the above amounts towards complete and final satisfaction of all claims against the petitioner/accused. The above amount shall be payable at one installment, the particulars of which is set out hereunder:

¶31

(a) the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.33,600/- via Demand Draft Number with demand Draft No.135117, Code No.592 dated 09.09.2021 of Karnataka Bank Ltd. Ujire Branch and same is handed over to the complainant/respondent today at Belthangady.

¶32

(b) The petitioner shall co-operate to withdraw the deposit amount of Rs.66,400/-

¶33

¶34

from the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady in C.C.No.515/2016, in receipt No.294525 dated 02.08.2019 which was deposited as surety amount. The said amount of Rs.66,400/- will be handed over same to respondent as complete satisfaction of all his claims against the petitioner/accused.

¶35

7. The complainant/respondent has indemnified by the petitioner/accused from any other proceedings, criminal or civil cases with respect to cheque No.035141 and 03.11.2014 and demand notice dated 09.12.2014 or any other claim with respect to the above mentioned cheque. The respondent/complainant shall not initiate fresh proceedings against the accused/petitioner in view of the terms of the present joint memo and compromise between the parties.

¶36

8. With this settlement, neither party has any claim over the other. The present compromise is entered for mutual benefit, peace and to maintain cordiality between the parties.

¶37

¶38

9. The present revision petition may be allowed by dismissing the judgment and order dated 07.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.71/2019 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge D.K. Mangalore, further dismisses the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.71/2019 vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2020 and PCR No.3/2015 before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady.

¶39

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dispose of the aforesaid petition, in terms of present joint memo, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶40

Both the parties appeared through video conference stated that the Demand Draft for Rs.33,600/is given to the complainant/respondent by the accused/revision petitioner. Learned counsel for both the parties and parties stated that, apart from that, the complainant will withdraw the amount of Rs.66,400/deposited before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangadi in C.C.No.515/2016 vide receipt No.294525

¶41

¶42

dated 2.8.2019. It is stated that the said amount will be withdrawn as per the terms stated in paragraph No.5(b) of the joint memo. The revision petitioner shall co-operate to withdraw the deposited amount by the respondent/complainant.

¶43

Both the parties who appeared through Video conference admitted the terms of the joint memo and stated that the contents are true and correct and voluntary one. Both the parties admitted their signature on the joint memo.

¶44

In view of filing of the joint memo which is nothing but compounding of the offence as per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, joint memo filed by both parties is accepted and I am satisfied that said memo/compromise is free and voluntary one and not opposed to any law or public policy.

¶45

Hence, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction passed by the Principal Civil Judge

¶46

¶47

and JMFC, Belthangady, D.K. in C.C.No.515/2016 dated 07.06.2019 convicting the accused/revision petitioner, which is affirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.Mangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.71/2019 dated 23.09.2020 is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in view of compounding of offence by the respondent/complainant

¶48

and the bail bonds of accused, if any, stand cancelled.

¶49

Intimate the same to the trial Court.

¶50

Sd/- JUDGE

¶51

*ap/-

Mr. Ramakrishna Gowda v. Mr. Shaji Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ramakrishna Gowda v. Mr. Shaji Thomas

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

C Narayana Chowdary S/O Late Anjanappa Chowdary Vs M Vimala Bai W/O Late Mundluru

Rajendra Vs Vardhaman S/O Ningappa Lagamannavara

Shri. Mustafa S/O Gajabarasab Mujawar, Vs Sri. Salim S/O Shoukatsab Mulla

Mr.Sushir Kumar Vs Mr.B.Jinendra

Cholamandalam M S General Vs N Bhagya

Chandregowda Vs P. Kaliyappan