Allowed

Smt Seema B a v. Sri Paramesha M

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2022CRL.RP/815/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition regarding a cheque bounce case was allowed after the parties filed a joint memo to compound the offence. The court set aside the convictions below, acquitted the petitioner, ordered a nominal cost, and permitted withdrawal of her bail money upon settlement of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Judgments below set aside; petitioner acquitted; cost of Rs. 15,000 to KSLRA; balance deposit released to petitioner.

Smt Seema B a Vs Sri Paramesha M — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.815 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SEEMA B.A W/O MOHAMMED D/O ABUBAKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE R/O. NEAR BALARAMESHWARA TEMPLE K.M.ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRISH.B.BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. PARAMESHA.M S/O MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O. OPP. SREELEKHA THEATRE BASAVANAHALLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.K.S.GANESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2018, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.143/17 BY CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2017, PASSED BY THE II

¶17

¶18

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN C.C.NO.63/2012 AND THE PETITIONER TO BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED AGAINST HIM.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Revision Petition is preferred against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the petitioner in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act,1881 has been confirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶22

A Joint Memo has been filed under Section 147 of N.I Act, 1881 to compound the offence, signed by both the learned counsel as well as the parties concerned, along with the Affidavit.

¶23

It is stated that at the intervention of the elders and well-wishers, the dispute between the petitioner and respondent has been resolved and the entire amount which was ordered by the Trial Court has been paid to the respondent/complainant.

¶24

¶25

It is submitted that the petitioner had no

¶26

intention to avoid any payment, on the other hand, she was a bonafide litigant and in fact the matter was settled between the parties much earlier and therefore, the petitioner's counsel prays to reduce the cost to be imposed.

¶27

The respondent who is present before the Court

¶28

submits that he has received the entire amount and therefore, he prays to compound the offence.

¶29

In view of the above, the parties are permitted to compound the offence and accordingly following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

a. The judgment and order dated 24.08.2017 passed in C.C No.63/2012 by the Court of the 2^nd Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagalur and the judgment and order dated 11.07.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.143/2017 by the Court of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru are hereby set aside.

¶32

¶33

b. Accused/revision petitioner is acquitted of

¶34

the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act,1881.

¶35

c. The accused/petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.15,000/-,(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) which shall be deducted from the amount which is in deposit before the Trial Court and the same shall be remitted to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

¶36

d. The accused/petitioner shall be permitted

¶37

to withdraw the balance amount which is in deposit before the Trial Court and the said amount shall be released in her favour after due identification.

¶38

The revision petition is allowed.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Smt Seema B a v. Sri Paramesha M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Seema B a v. Sri Paramesha M

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

M/S. Fortuna Projects India (P) Ltd. Vs M/S, Kaushalesh Steels

Sri v C Manjunath Vs Sri a S Bangaru Kuldeep

Sri. Vijay Kumar Tripati Vs State by Central Crime Branch

Sri Dhanraj Vs State of Karnataka

Geetha G Vs State of Karnataka by

P. Padmanaban Vs the State of Karnataka