Allowed

M/S Cheluvambika Pictures v. C Kalyan

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2023CRL.P/7108/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings initiated under S. 421 Cr.P.C for cheque dishonour. The Court held that since the respondent had filed an execution petition in Civil Court on a Lok-Adalath award, parallel criminal recovery proceedings were impermissible.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent in Crl.Misc No.11856/2016 under Section 421 of Cr.P.C are quashed.

M/S Cheluvambika Pictures Vs C Kalyan — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38338 CRL.P No. 7108 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7108 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S CHELUVAMBIKA PICTURES, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. S. NARAYAN, MAJOR, R/AT GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, SHIVAGANGE POST, SOMPURA HOBLI, DABASPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

C. KALYAN, S/O C. KOTAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/AT PLOT NO.31/B, G-1M ROAD, NO.5, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 411 009.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. CHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38338 CRL.P No. 7108 of 2017

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE XXI ACMM, BANGALORE IN CRL.MISC.NO.11856/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 421 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the proceeding initiated by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.11856/2016 under Section 421 of Cr.P.C pending Trial before the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru to recover a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, as per the joint memo filed before the LokAdalath.

¶20

The respondent initiated proceedings to prosecute the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and to recover a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- payable under the cheque drawn by the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner and the respondent filed a joint memo before Lok-Adalath on 17.01.2015 and admitted that,

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38338 CRL.P No. 7108 of 2017

¶23

the cheque in question was issued for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/to discharge its liability and undertook to pay the amount payable under the cheque and obtain a valid discharge from the respondent. Later, the respondent initiated the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.7085/2015 under Section 421 of Cr.P.C to recover

¶24

the amount payable under the cheque as fine, which was dismissed for not taking sufficient steps. Later, the respondent again initiated recovery proceedings under Section 421 of Cr.P.C which was numbered as Crl.Misc.No.11856/2016. The respondent then filed EP.No.1334/2018 before the Civil Court to execute the award passed by the Lok-Adalath.

¶25

The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.11856/2016.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the respondent and therefore, there is no liability and consequently, the proceeding initiated by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.11856/2016 is illegal. He also submits that when the Lok-Adalath had passed the award, it is enforceable before

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38338 CRL.P No. 7108 of 2017

¶28

the Civil Court and the respondent cannot initiate proceedings under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. since, under Section 21 of Legal services Authority Act, 1987 an award of the Lok-Adalath is deemed to be decree passed by Civil Court. As the respondent has already filed a execution petition, the question of initiating parallel proceedings under Section 421 of Cr.P.C is improper.

¶29

6. Per contra , the learned Senior counsel representing the respondent submitted that the petitioner has been delaying the payment of the money on one or the other reason . He denies the receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- from the petitioner and contends that, the issue was compromised before the LokAdalath and hence petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. He however does not dispute the fact that the respondent has already filed EP.No.1334/2018 which is pending consideration.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel for the respondent.

¶31

A warrant for levy of fine can be issued by the Court only when an accused is sentenced to pay fine. In the case on

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38338 CRL.P No. 7108 of 2017

¶33

hand, the parties had filed a joint memo before the Lok Adalath and the case stood disposed off between the parties on terms that were mutually agreed. There was obviously no sentence of fine. Under Section 21 of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987, every award of the Lok-Adalath is deemed to be decree of Civil Court and therefore, is to be executed in the manner provided under the Order XXI of CPC. The respondent has therefore, consciously initiated proceedings before the Civil Court to execute the terms of joint memo. However, the respondent has initiated proceedings before the Criminal Court under Section 421 of Cr.P.C by filing Crl.Misc No.11856/2016. Once the respondent is already before the Civil Court to enforce the order passed by the Lok-Adalath, he cannot pursue any proceedings before the Criminal Court under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. This is also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

¶34

in K.N.Govindan Kutty Memon Vs C.D.Shaji reported in 2012(2) SCC 51 .

¶35

In view of the above, this petition is allowed . The impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent in Crl.Misc No.11856/2016 under Section 421 of Cr.P.C pending

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:38338 CRL.P No. 7108 of 2017

¶37

¶38

consideration before the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶39