Allowed

Bethel Ag Church v. a Ramkrishna

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2022CRL.P/2067/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court accepted a settlement agreement where the petitioner paid the balance consideration, leading to the quashing of the criminal case.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 35417/2021 and C.C. No. 37455/2021 were terminated/quashed.

Bethel Ag Church Vs a Ramkrishna — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2067 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

BETHEL AG CHURCH INTERNATIONAL WORSHIP CENTRE, A REGISTERED RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 57/58, 11^TH CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 024, REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3.

¶9

REV. PASTOR JOHNSON VARGHESE, TRUSTEE, BETHEL AG CHURCH INTERNATIONAL WORSHIP CENTRE, A REGISTERED RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 57/58, 11^TH CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 024.

¶10

REV. PASTOR CYNTHIA JOHNSON, TRUSTEE, BETHEL AG CHURCH INTERNATIONAL WORSHIP CENTRE, A REGISTERED RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST,

¶11

¶12

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 57/58, 11^TH CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 024.

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

[BY SRI.ANIKETH B.C., ADVOCATE]

¶15

AND

¶16

SRI. A. RAMKRISHNA, S/O SRI. ANJANEYACHAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.33, OPPOSITE SRI RAMA TEMPLE, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶17

... RESPONDENT

¶18

[BY SRI.CHANDAN K., ADVOCATE]

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2021 IN C.C.NO.35417/2021 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE XXI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF THE SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONERS (PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE - A). THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The issue arises out of the proceedings instituted by the respondent complainant against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1981.

¶22

¶23

During the pendency of this petition, the parties

¶24

to the lis have entered into a settlement. The terms of which read as follows:

¶25

“ JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1981 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

¶26

A. The Petitioners and Respondent respectfully submit as follows:

¶27

B. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Petition praying to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“ Act” ), initiated by the Respondent in C.C.No.35417/2021 ( “Impugned Proceedings” ) pending before the Hon’ble XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru ( “Trial Court” ) as well as the Order dated 14.12.2021 in C.C.No.35417/2021

¶28

(“ Impugned Order” ).

¶29

C. The Respondent along with Century Landmark and Century Star (represented by Mr. Ashwin Pai) ( “Century” ), and the Petitioners had

¶30

¶31

executed a composite transaction via Term Sheet dated 23-08-2019. Out of INR 100 Crore sale consideration agreed upon for the sale of the Schedule A & B properties described under the Term Sheet, the Petitioners have duly paid INR 97 Crores to the Respondent and Century, which constitutes 97% of the agreed consideration.

¶32

D. It is submitted that the Petitioners were required to pay the balance sale consideration to the Respondent on certain conditions mentioned in the MOU dated 20-4-2021. However, during the course of complying with the said conditions there were some misunderstandings between the Petitioners and Respondent which led to the aforementioned lis under section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881.

¶33

E. Now the parties have resolved their differences in the light of withdrawal of RFA No.209/2015 on 09.03.2022 by the Hon’ble High Court and have come forward to amicably settle the same. In consideration of the said amicable settlement, Petitioners are today paying the balance sale consideration for full and final settlement of all payment obligations under the documents mentioned below, a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- [Rupees three crores only] to the

¶34

¶35

Respondent through demand draft bearing No.385829, dated 20.04.2022, drawn on the South Indian Bank Limited, Cantonment Branch, Bangalore in favour of the Respondent.

¶36

F. In consideration of the receipt of the above payment towards balance sale consideration, Respondent hereby confirms that he has no further claim, right, title or interest over the schedule property and that the schedule property has been transferred absolutely in favour of the Petitioner and the schedule property completely vests with the Petitioner free from any claim or interest from all the parties to the below listed documents.

¶37

G. Respondent hereby withdraws all his claims with respect to cheque bearing No.570156 dated 19.04.2021, both drawn on South Indian Bank Limited, Cantonment Branch, Bangalore issued by the Petitioners for a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- [Rupees three crores only].

¶38

H. Furthermore, the respondent confirms that he, along with others have executed the following documents in favour of the petitioner as listed below from No.1 to No.7.”

¶39

¶40

In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties which is by way of payment of Rs.3,00,00,000/- by Demand Draft as is mentioned at paragraph E, I deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.35417/2021.

¶41

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The criminal petition is disposed of.

¶44

(ii) The proceedings against petitioners in

¶45

C.C.NO. 37455/2021 for the offence punishable

¶46

under Section 138 of N.I. Act pending before the XXI ACMM., Bengaluru, stand quashed.

¶47

tsn*

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

Bethel Ag Church v. a Ramkrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bethel Ag Church v. a Ramkrishna

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 Mamatha Vs State of Karnataka

Ramachandra Vs Sujatha H B

Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Domnic @ Jommy Vs the State by

Sri H R Bhagavan Vs L I C of India

Shivakumar B Vs State of Karnataka