Allowed

T.D.Begure Gowda v. C.N.Murthy

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1426/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of a criminal appeal, the High Court considered a joint memo filed by the parties to compound the Section 138 NI Act offence. The court accepted the memo, permitted withdrawal of deposited amounts, set aside the lower court judgments, and acquitted the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Joint memo accepted; respondent permitted to withdraw deposit; impugned order set aside; petitioner acquitted under S.138 NI Act.

T.D.Begure Gowda Vs C.N.Murthy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1426 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

T.D.Begure Gowda, S/o D.Thimmaiah, Aged about 51 years, R/at No.482, 1^st Main Road, Near Water Tank, Chandramouleshwara Layout, Hunusamaranahalli, Hosahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-562157.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Harish Kumar S., Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

C.N.Murthy, S/o C.Narayanappa, Aged about 37 years, R/at No.114, Father’s Building, Near Yellamma Temple, 4^th Cross, Maruthi Nagar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560061.

¶13

…Respondent

¶14

(By Sri Narasi Reddy G., Advocate)

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 16.02.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.984/2016 on the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru.

¶17

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for orders through video conferencing this day, the court made the following:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

A joint memo is filed by the petitioner and the respondent. This memo is treated as an application

¶20

filed under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶21

This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment in Criminal Appeal 984/2016 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.22690/2014. As he was convicted for the offence

¶22

under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

¶23

¶24

he preferred the said appeal which came to be dismissed.

¶25

The respondent herein initiated proceeding

¶26

for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable

¶27

Instruments Act as the cheque issued by the petitioner for Rs.4,00,000/- was not honoured for want of sufficient funds in his bank account. Now, according to the joint memo, the respondent is agreeable for receiving Rs.3,25,000/from the petitioner for compounding the offence. Petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.80,000/- in the trial court vide Q.No.(R.O.No.)12296/2017 dated 20.11.2017. The petitioner has agreed to pay balance of Rs.2,45,000/- to the respondent. The respondent is agreeable for the same. In view of the settlement between the parties, exercising power under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the joint memo is accepted and compounding is permitted.

¶28

¶29

Respondent is permitted to withdraw Rs.80,000/lying in deposit in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Therefore the judgments of the courts below are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence under section 138

¶30

of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

ckl

T.D.Begure Gowda v. C.N.Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.D.Begure Gowda v. C.N.Murthy

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.Manjeshwara Vs Sri.Dharme Gowda

R. Geetha Vs Shanthamma

Shabina Syed Khasim Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vinaya S Shetty Vs M/S Makara Jyothi Chits Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Shanthamma Vs State by

Ananda Vs State of Karnataka