Allowed

Rishi Ventures v. Jayees Steels

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2022CRL.P/8493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition challenged an order rejecting a request to continue proceedings under Section 138 NI Act arising from a Lokadalat settlement. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the magistrate to proceed from the examination-in-chief stage based on the settlement terms.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 20.10.2018 quashed; Magistrate directed to proceed from the stage of examination-in-chief of the complainant.

Rishi Ventures Vs Jayees Steels — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8493/2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RISHI VENTURES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.190, 4TH FLOOR, J.P. SQUARE, SANKEY ROAD, SADASHIVNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. PRAVEEN PRABHAKAR.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SUNIL P.P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

JAYESS STEELS A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT, 8/2, POTTERS COLONY, 3RD CROSS, NEW BAMBOO BAZAAR, BENGALURU-560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. SULTAN AHMED.

¶12

MR. K. SULTAN AHMED AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13, 18TH STREET, CHANDNI CHOWK ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 051.

¶13

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI AMSHITH HEGDE H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1976 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.10.2018 PASSED IN C.C.NO.3926/2015 BY THE LEARNED XXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was filed by

¶20

the petitioner-complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the said proceedings, the complainant and the accused arrived at the settlement and in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties, the learned Lokadalat passed an order dated 14.1.2016, accepting the compromise petition. As per the terms of the compromise, the accused was required to pay a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- towards full and final settlement.

¶21

The accused in terms of the settlement, paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and having defaulted in making the payment of

¶22

¶23

the balance amount, the complainant filed an application for issuing fine levy warrant. The accused challenged the order of issuing fine levying warrant before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused confirming the issuance of fine levying warrant against the accused.

¶24

Thereafter, the complainant submitted an application

¶25

before the learned Magistrate requesting to permit him to continue the case against the accused in terms of the Clause 2 (c) of the joint memo, wherein, the parties had agreed, in the event of accused failing to comply with the terms and conditions, liberty was reserved with the complainant to continue with the case without prejudice to the payment made by the accused.

¶26

The learned Magistrate rejected the request made by the complainant stating that the complainant can execute the order passed by the Lokadalat for recovery of balance amount as per the terms of the joint memo filed by the parties. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶29

that in terms of Clause 2(c) of the joint memo, the petitionercomplainant is at liberty to continue with the proceedings against the accused in the event, the accused failed to pay the balance amount. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, rejecting the request of the complainant to continue with the proceedings against the accused is not tenable in law.

¶30

I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶31

In terms of the joint memo filed by the parties, the

¶32

Lokadalat accepted the joint memo and in terms of the settlement arrived between the parties, the accused paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- out of Rs.8,50,000/-. The Clause 2 (c) of the

¶33

joint memo filed by the parties specifies that the accused shall abide the above terms and conditions, failing which, the Complainant will be at liberty to continue with the case without prejudice to the payment made by the accused. In the present case, accused has failed to pay the balance amount and in terms

¶34

¶35

of the Clause 2(c) of the joint memo liberty is reserved with the complainant to continue with the case.

¶36

Perusal of the order sheet dated 14.1.2016, indicates that the joint memo filed by the parties is accepted. However, there is no order closing the complaint and no order was passed in pursuance of the settlement arrived between the parties. In the absence of any order passed by the learned Magistrate closing of the complainant and in view of Clause 2 (c) of the joint memo, the petitioner-complainant is entitled to continue with the proceedings against the accused for not having complied with the terms and conditions contained in the joint memo. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the request of the petitioner-complainant to continue with the proceedings is not sustainable.

¶37

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner-complainant has made out a prima facie. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) Criminal Petition is allowed

¶40

¶41

ii) The impugned order dated 20.10.2018 passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru is here by quashed.

¶42

iii) The learned Magistrate to proceed from the stage of examination-in-chief of the complainant.

¶43

iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

HR

Rishi Ventures v. Jayees Steels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Ventures v. Jayees Steels

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 N Jayaram Vs State of Karnataka

Sri J a Mahaveer Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri Narayana Naika P Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Spi Green Energy Vs the State of Karnataka

Rosemary Ratnam Vs Anam Hussain (Minor)

Sri.D. Chandrashekara Vs the State of Karnataka by