Allowed

Sri Suryaprakash Singapur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2021WP/10111/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging an ACMM order rejecting interim compensation under Section 143(A) of the NI Act. The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the accused to deposit 10% of the cheque amount as interim compensation in a fixed deposit.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01.03.2021 dismissing the application under Section 143(A) of the NI Act was set aside; the earlier order allowing the application was restored and modified to direct the respondent to

Sri Suryaprakash Singapur Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO.10111/2021 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:-

¶7

SRI SURYAPRAKASH SINGAPUR S/O. SRI SANNAYYA SINGAPUR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.166, ADARSH PALM MEADOWS, WHITEFIELD ROAD, RAMAGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 066

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE (V.C.) )

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PIN - 560 001

¶12

SRI R.J. RATNAKAR, S/O. SRI LATE R.V. JANAKIRAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶13

¶14

R/AT NO.2-501, SIVALAYAM STREET, PUTTAPARTHI-545 134 ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 (P.H.) ; SRI H. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (P.H.) )

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.01.03.2021, PASSED BY THE XXXIV ACMM, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE IN C.C. NO.52221/2019 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 143 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioner-complainant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the XXXIV Additional ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, on the application filed by

¶21

¶22

the complainant under Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’) in C.C. No.52221/2019 on 01.03.2021.

¶23

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent/accused.

¶24

The case of the complainant is that he filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 139 of N.T. Act for dishonor of the Cheque issued by the respondent/accused in favour of the petitionercomplainant, for insufficient funds. After filing complaint, the respondent/accused had appeared before the trial Court. The complainant filed an application 143(A) of N.I. Act for grant of 20% of the Cheque amount as interim compensation. The same came to be allowed on 11.12.2019 in part. While allowing the application, the respondent/accused was directed to pay 10% of the

¶25

¶26

Cheque amount as interim compensation within 60 days from the date of said order. Subsequently, the respondent/accused filed an application on 29.01.2020 for permitting him to deposit 20% of the Cheque amount in the Court and the same shall be kept in Court till disposal of the case. But the trial Court instead of passing orders on the application filed by respondent/accused, again passed one more order on 01.03.2021 rejecting the application filed by the complainant under Section 143(A) of N.I. Act. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Having heard the arguments and perused the records, it is pertinent to note that initially an order has been passed by the trial Court on 11.12.2019 by allowing the application filed by the petitioner/complainant directing the respondent/accused to pay 10% of the Cheque amount as interim compensation as per Section 143(A) of N.I. Act. Thereafter on 29.01.2020 the respondent/accused filed an application under Section 143(A) of N.I. Act seeking

¶28

¶29

permission to deposit interim compensation amount in the Court and to keep the said amount in the Court account till disposal of the case. But the trial Court committed an error without passing any order directing the respondent/accused to deposit the amount in the Court or rejecting the application. But proceeded to pass one more order on 01.03.2021 by rejecting the application filed by the very complainant under Section 143(A) of N.I. Act. It may be by oversight or an error, but once the order was passed by allowing or rejecting the application, the same Magistrate has no power to recall any order passed on the same application as per the provisions of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the view that the 2^nd order passed by the trial Court on 01.03.2021 is to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed.

¶30

However, though the learned counsel for the respondent/accused had already filed an application for depositing the interim compensation in the Court till

¶31

¶32

disposal of the case, the trial Court has not passed any order on that application. Even if it is considered, the trial Court cannot change the order as there is a bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Therefore with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the said application is to be considered before this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that the petitioner/complainant is said to be a Foreign Citizen and if the amount is released he may fled away from India, then it is difficult to recover the said amount. He also submits that the transaction is 10 years old and there is every possibility of success of the respondent/accused in the final judgment, therefore, by looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary for this Court to pass an order on the application filed by the respondent/accused seeking for permission to deposit the amount before the Court.

¶34

¶35

There is substance in the arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

¶36

Therefore, I am of the view that the application filed by the respondent/accused is required to be disposed of by exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India apart from Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The order passed by the trial Court on 01.03.2021 dismissing the application under Section 143(A) of N.I. Act is hereby set aside. The earlier order dated 11.12.2019 allowing the application filed under Section 143(A) of N.I. Act is restored. However the order is modified to direct the respondent/accused to deposit 10% of the Cheque amount in the Court within six weeks from

¶40

¶41

the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be ordered to be deposited in any Nationalized Bank as Fixed Deposit, initially for a period of one year, which shall be renewable from time to time, till disposal of the case by the trial Court.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sbs*

Sri Suryaprakash Singapur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suryaprakash Singapur v. the State of Karnataka

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

Narayana Gowda Vs Union of India

Sri R Srinivasa Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G K Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. M Inder Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Arun Kumar Vs the Police Inspector

Mr Praveen Kumar B B Vs Mrs Nivitha