Allowed

Jayesh Gowda G v. M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2021CRL.RP/66/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397/401 CrPC. A settlement was reached where the petitioner paid the cheque amount to the bank. The conviction was set aside, and the court deposit was adjusted between the State Exchequer, the bank, and the petitioner's loan account.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; cheque amount to respondent; balance deposit adjusted towards loan; Rs. 7,500 to State Exchequer.

Jayesh Gowda G Vs M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.66 OF 2019

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

JAYESH GOWDA G, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SRIRAMPURA NANJAPPA GANGADHARA, NO.8 AND 9, RMV 2ND STAGE, 7TH CROSS,KGE LAYOUT, NEW BEL ROAD, DEVASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 094. AND ALSO AT:

¶7

JAYESH GOWDA G, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT LTD., EMP CODE 6001 1015, PRAKASH BLG. GR. TECH PAR, BENGALURU-560 066. PRESENTLY AT NO.112, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN, ACHITNAGAR, SOLADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 090. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶8

¶9

AND:

¶10

M/S HDFC BANK LTD., GOLDEN TOWERS, 3RD FLOOR, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER PATTI MANJUNATH. …RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI V SURESH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED IN JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.255/2017 BY THE COURT OF THE LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-70) AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 04.02.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.9744/2016 BY THE COURT OF THE XXVI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This revision petition is filed by the accused for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.11.2018 passed in Crl.A. No.255/2017 by the LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70) confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.02.2017 passed in C.C. No.9744/2016 by the XXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶17

¶18

The brief facts are that the respondent / complainant Bank had initiated criminal prosecution against the accused / revision petitioner by filing a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act. The allegations are that the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonored as there was no sufficient funds in his account. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount. Despite service of notice, the accused failed to pay the amount. Thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

¶19

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court arrived at a factual finding that the petitioner / accused has duly issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.42,117/- in discharge of the debt of liability. The cheque was presented to the Bank for payment within the period of its validity. But the cheque has been returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Even after the issuance of statutory notice of dishonor, there was no response by the accused. The appellate court affirmed the aforesaid factual findings. The trial court and appellate

¶20

¶21

court have arrived at the concurrent factual finding that the cheque had admittedly been signed by the petitioner / accused.

¶22

It is well settled that in exercise of a revision jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, the High Court does not in the absence of perversity, upset the factual concurrent findings.

¶23

In the present case, learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent have filed a joint memo, stating that they have mutually arrived at a settlement that the petitioner / accused shall pay only the cheque amount of Rs.42,117/- to the respondent / complainant Bank and the balance amount of Rs.37,883/- which is in Court deposit shall be adjusted towards the loan account of the accused. In view of the settlement between the parties, there are grounds for setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below and for modification. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The criminal revision petition is allowed.

¶26

¶27

The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.11.2018 passed in Crl.A. No.255/2017 by the LXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70) is set aside and the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.02.2017 passed in C.C. No.9744/2016 by the XXVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is modified as under:

¶28

Out of the amount of Rs.87,500/- deposited before the trial Court, by the petitioner / accused:

¶29

i. A sum of Rs.7,500/- shall go the State Exchequer;

¶30

ii. The cheque amount of Rs.42,117/- shall be received by the respondent / complainant Bank; and

¶31

iii. The balance sum of Rs.37,883/- in Court deposit shall be released to the respondent / complainant for adjusting the said amount towards the loan account of the accused.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Jayesh Gowda G v. M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayesh Gowda G v. M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd.

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

V K Venkatesh Vs H P Hanumantha Shetty

Sri. M T Kishan Vs Sri. Krishna D Proprietor

Mrs Mariam Fasihuddin Vs State by Adugodi Police Station

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

Sri Chinnappa Vs State by Hulimavu Police Station

Smt Chikkamma Vs Sri Lingaiah