Allowed

Sri Harish Vasudev Kittali v. Sri Deepak B

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023CRL.RP/311/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and quashed the conviction for cheque dishonour after the parties settled the dispute. The court set aside the trial and appellate judgments causing the petitioner's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; Petitioner acquitted; Amount in deposit released to Respondent.

Sri Harish Vasudev Kittali Vs Sri Deepak B — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 311 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 311 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. HARISH VASUDEV KITTALI S/O LATE SRI R.K. VASUDEV, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O NO.3434/C, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, I "F" CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.V.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. DEEPAK B S/O SRI BABU, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. ROOPA W/O LATE SRI. DEEPAK B, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O NO.33, RAJAMMA BUILDING, LAKSHMAIAH LAYOUT, NEAR M.K. ENGINEERING, ABBIGERE, BENGALURU-560090.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. H.R.MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.2021 PASSED BY THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.25015/2018 AND ETC.

¶18

¶19

CRL.RP No. 311 of 2022

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2018 passed by the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) in C.C.No.52940/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and consequent sentence to pay fine of Rs.11,95,000/-. The petitioner has also called in question the judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by the XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.25015/2018 by which, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

¶23

When this revision petition was listed for admission, the petitioner and the respondent have filed a joint memo, in terms of which, they have settled the dispute at a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of the amount payable under the cheque in question. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.2,72,000/- is paid by cash, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the respondent. It is further stated that the

¶24

¶25

CRL.RP No. 311 of 2022

¶26

balance sum of Rs.4,78,000/-, which is deposited by the petitioner before the Trial Court be released in favour of the respondent.

¶27

The joint memo is placed on record.

¶28

In view of the joint memo, this revision petition is allowed . The offence committed by the petitioner punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compounded. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2018 passed by the XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.52940/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as well as the judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by the XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.25015/2018 are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶29

The amount in deposit before the Trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent.

¶30

¶31

CRL.RP No. 311 of 2022

¶32

The imposition of graded cost as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S.

¶33

Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H [AIR 2010 SC 1907] is dispensed with, since the petitioner pleaded severe financial difficulties faced in arranging money to settle this dispute.

¶34

The Registry is directed forthwith to return the Trial

¶35

Court as well as the Appellate Court records.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

PMR

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Sri Harish Vasudev Kittali v. Sri Deepak B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Harish Vasudev Kittali v. Sri Deepak B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramu Vs Deputy Commissioner

Fareed Vs the State of Karnataka

Surendrababu Vs M C Ramesh

Smt. Meenakumari Vs Smt. Ashwini. B. S.

Sri B P Rajesh Vs Sri K Narayana Reddy

T.Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka