Allowed

Sri Aswatha M v. Smt Chandrakala

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2022CRL.P/3552/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order closing an NI Act case (Section 138) arising from a breached settlement. The lower court closed the case citing confusion with a separate criminal case. This court allowed the petition, finding the cases unrelated in parties and subject matter, and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.04.2019 in C.C. No. 52749/2015 passed by LVIII ACMM, Bengaluru, is quashed and matter restored to original file.

Sri Aswatha M Vs Smt Chandrakala — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3552 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. ASWATHA M S/O S.Y.MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.103, 1ST CROSS SORAHUNASE CROSS MUTHASANDRA MAIN ROAD NEAR VIJAYA BAR, VARTHUR BANGALORE - 560 087 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE) AND : SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 11TH CROSS NEAR SRI. VEERANJANAYA TEMPLE KUDANAHALLI COLONY MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560 037 ALSO AT: SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.1/1, 11TH CROSS ITPL MAIN ROAD KUDANAHALLI COLONY MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560 037 ...RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2022 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶9

¶10

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.04.2019 IN C.C.NO.52749/2015 PASSED BY THE LVIII ACMM, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A CLOSING THE CASE THOUGH FINDS THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED DEFAULT IN MAKING PAYMENT IN TERMS OF THE JOINT MEMO AND DIRECT THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE TO TAKE NECESSARY LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST.

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. In the said proceedings, on a joint memo filed by the parties before Lok Adalat concerned, the case was disposed of in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, whereby, the respondent agreed to settle the matter by paying a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards full and final settlement. Since, the respondent did not honour the terms of the settlement, petitioner filed an application to issue fine levy warrant for recovering the amount of

¶14

¶15

Rs.15,00,000/- which was payable by the respondent in terms of the settlement.

¶16

Learned Magistrate closed the proceedings stating that the petitioner has not clarified that the proceedings in C.C.No.2346/2017 is not for payment on the same subject matter. Hence, this petition.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings and payment of the amount by the respondent is not the subject matter of the said proceedings. Hence, he submits that though the petitioner had brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the matter is entirely different, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in passing the impugned order.

¶18

Respondent though served with notice has remained absent.

¶19

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

¶21

Perusal of the case details furnished by the petitioner indicate that C.C.No.2346/2017 is initiated by one Mr.Murugan against Muthuraj and others and the petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings and the said proceedings is pending consideration for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 341 and 120 of IPC. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.2346/2017 does not relate to payment of amount which the respondent had agreed to pay in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶22

Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.04.2019 in C.C.No.52749/2015 passed by the LVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru is hereby quashed. The matter is restored to its original file. The learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law.

¶23

Sd/JUDGE

¶24

pgg

Sri Aswatha M v. Smt Chandrakala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Aswatha M v. Smt Chandrakala

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

Sri. A.M. Naik Vs State by Deputy Superintendent

Sri B T Ramesh Vs State by Deputy Superintendent of Police

Imad Kolla Vs State by Sirsi Town Ps

M. Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

H Abbas Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elect)

Sri B Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka