Allowed

Jayagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil v. Basavaeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Sankeshwar

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2022CRL.P/101363/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash an order dismissing a revision petition and allowing recall of a witness for cross-examination in a cheque bounce case. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000 and ensuring trial concludes within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed subject to deposit of Rs.25,000 within specified date and conduct of cross-examination followed by trial completion within six months.

Jayagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil Vs Basavaeshwar Urban… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 101363 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101363 OF 2022 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JAYAGOUDA S/O SHIVAGOUDA PATIL AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HALLAKERI, PATIL GALLI HUKKERI, TQ. HUKKERI DIST. BELAGAVI-591309

¶10

…ACCUSED/PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

BASAVAESHWAR URBAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NIYAMIT SANKESHWAR R/BY VIVEK S GALGALI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ. HUKKERI DIST. BELAGAVI-591313

¶14

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶15

Digitally signed byANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,DHARWAD.

¶16

…COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. CHETANA S. BIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.378/2019 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKKODI ALLOWING THE PRESENT

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 101363 of 2022

¶21

PETITION AND RESTORE THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this petition, the petitioner, who is accused before

¶25

the Trial Court and petitioner before the District Court has challenged the order dated 03.03.2022 in Criminal Revision Petition No.378/2019 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at Chikodi, whereby the said petition came to be dismissed for nonprosecution and consequently confirming the order of the Trial Court passed on application filed under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“N.I. Act” for short) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-accused to recall PW1 for cross-examination.

¶26

Though this matter was posted for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 101363 of 2022

¶29

Respondent, which is a Credit Co-operative

¶30

Society, filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the accused has availed a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- for business purposes and similarly his wife Smt. Bharati Jayagouda Patil also has availed loan of Rs.25,00,000/- for which the petitioner is surety/co-obligator. When they failed to repay the loan, in respect of both loans petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.74,36,689/-. When the same was presented for realization, it was returned with endorsement ‘account closed’. After issuing notice and complying with legal formalities, complaint came to be filed in PCR No.234/2018.

¶31

From the material placed on record, it is evident that after the examination-in-chief of PW1, the petitioner has failed to cross-examination him. At his instance, once PW1 was recalled, however then also he failed to crossexamine the PW1 and therefore, the cross-examination was taken as nil and the matter was proceed with. Once again petitioner filed an application to recall PW1 and it came to be rejected by order dated 17.08.2019 on twin

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 101363 of 2022

¶34

grounds i.e. already once witness was recalled and he was not cross-examined and secondly in compliance with the order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as required under section 145(3) of the N. I. Act, the petitioner has failed to comply with the same.

¶35

Against the said order, petitioner has approached the District Court in CRP No.378/2019. Even though the said petition was pending for a period of three years, the petitioner has not chosen to address the arguments and ultimately after providing several opportunities, the District Court vide order dated 03.03.2022 has dismissed the revision petition against which the petitioner has come up with the present petition.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the order passed by the Trial Court, the revision petition was not maintainable and therefore, no purpose would serve by remitting the matter to the revision court. On the other hand, he prays to allow the

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 101363 of 2022

¶39

petition and remand the matter to the Trial Court to provide one opportunity to cross-examine PW1.

¶40

On this aspect, learned counsel for respondentcomplainant submits that by imposing heavy cost and terms, the matter may be remanded. She further submits that as per the order passed on application under section 143-A of the N. I. Act, the petitioner is also required to deposit 20% of the cheque amount and that condition may also be imposed on the petitioner.

¶41

So far as the direction to deposit 20% of the

¶42

cheque amount, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another criminal petition is pending and the same would be taken care of in the said petition.

¶43

Having regard to the fact that the respondent is

¶44

a credit co-operative society and admittedly petitioner and his wife have availed loan and issued the cheque and taking into consideration the heavy amount involved in the transaction, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be given an opportunity to establish his defence. However, it

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 101363 of 2022

¶47

is also the responsibility of the petitioner-accused that he

¶48

should not misuse the liberty given to him and he should go on with the matter without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Having regard to the fact that the loan transaction is of the year 2011 and private complaint came

¶49

to be filed during 2018 and unnecessarily before the District Court the petitioner kept pending the revision petition for a period of three years, I am of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit cost of Rs.25,000/- and go on with the crossexamination, without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶50

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The petition is allowed subject to following conditions:

¶53

i) Both the parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 12.10.2022 and on or before the said date, the petitioner/accused shall deposit cost of Rs.25,000/- before the Trial Court. The complainant is at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶54

¶55

CRL.P No. 101363 of 2022

¶56

ii) The complainant shall keep present PW1 before the Trial Court on that date and the petitioner shall go on with the crossexamination. If, for any reason, on 12.10.2022 the complainant could not keep present PW1 before the Trial Court, the same shall be conducted on the next adjournment given by the Trial Court, without fail.

¶57

iii) The Trial Court is directed to conclude the entire proceedings within a period of six months from 12.10.2022. Both the parties shall co-operate with the Trial Court in disposing of the matter within six months from 12.10.2022.

¶58

In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

YAN

Jayagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil v. Basavaeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Sankeshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayagouda S/O Shivagouda Patil v. Basavaeshwar Urban Credit Souhard Sahakari Niyamit Sankeshwar

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

Mr Bajirao Sadashiv Ghorpade Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Balappa S/O Basappa Limbikai Vs Sri. Satish S/O Krishna Masuti

G.Ameed Basha Vs Shrinivas Traders

Sri.Mallappa Vs Trupti W/O Mallappa Angadi

Shivanand Shambulingayah Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kasturi W/O Ashok Pattar Vs the State of Karnataka