Dismissed

Sri. Akshay Gangadhar v. M/S Joni Films

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2024CRL.P/5980/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A complainant sought quashing of a trial court order that refused to strike out the defence of accused who failed to deposit interim compensation under Section 143(A) NI Act in a Rs.86 lakh cheque dishonour case. Court held non-deposit does not bar cross-examination; recovery possible under Section 421 Cr.P.C.; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted to petitioner; liberty noted to recover unpaid interim compensation per Sec.143(A)(5) NI Act read with Secs.421/431 Cr.P.C. as fine.

Sri. Akshay Gangadhar Vs M/S Joni Films — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:788 CRL.P No. 5980 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5980 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. AKSHAY GANGADHAR S/O HONNA SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.2 VISHAL PALAZZO, FLAT NO.201 2^ND FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, NEAR SUBRAMANESHWARA TEMPLE, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

M/S. JONI FILMS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS,

¶15

SRI. JONI HARSHA, AND SMT. LATHA H.

¶16

MR. JONI HARSHA S/O. J. NEELAKANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER OF M/S JONI FILMS.

¶17

SMT. LATHA H W/O JONI HARSHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: PARTNER OF M/S JONI FILMS,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:788 CRL.P No. 5980 of 2022

¶20

ALL THE ABOVE ARE R/AT: NO.69 (1414), 1^ST FLOOR, 23^RD CROSS, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 011.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED BY XXIV ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND A.C.M.M BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.6855/2021 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC.145(2) OF N.I ACT PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN TO.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.6855/2021 dated 22.04.2022 for having rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 143(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') and to reject the defence of the respondentaccused.

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:788 CRL.P No. 5980 of 2022

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act for having dishonoured the cheque issued by the respondent-accused for Rs.86,00,000/. After appearance of the respondent-accused and recording the plea, the Trial Court passed an order to deposit 10% of the cheque amount as per Section 143(A) of the N.I. Act and directed to deposit within 60 days. But the respondent-accused did not pay the amount. Therefore, the petitioner moved application for striking out the defence and not to permit the respondent to cross examine the P.W.1 which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the respondent disobeyed the order of the Trial Court not depositing the interim compensation within 60 days, he has no right to cross examine the witness. Therefore, he shall not be permitted to cross examine as P.W.1. But the Trial Court committed error in rejecting the application. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶32

Ravi vs. Moggannagowda in Crl.P.No.462/2020 dated

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:788 CRL.P No. 5980 of 2022

¶35

13.10.2020, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held though the interim compensation can be recoverable as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C., however, the amount is not paid by the respondent and he should not be allowed to cross examine the complainant. However, in the final order, it was revealed that during the pendency of the said case, the accused paid the entire amount and permitted the accused to cross examine the complainant. However, this Court in Crl.P.No.1807/2021 dated 26.07.2021 has taken clear view that the interim compensation ordered by the Magistrate can be recoverable as provided under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. as per Sub Section 5 of Section 143(A) of N.I. Act. This Court while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs. The State (Govt. Of NCT) Delhi on 11 January, 2012 reported in 2012(2) SCC 584 has categorically held that if the accused did not deposit the interim compensation, it can be recovered under Section 421 of Cr.P.C., but it cannot be denied for the purpose of cross examination of the complainant.

¶36

In the recent case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also taken similar view in the case of Noor Mohammed vs.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:788 CRL.P No. 5980 of 2022

¶38

Khurram Pasha in Criminal Appeal No.--- of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2872/2022), that the right of cross examination cannot be denied which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the amount, if not paid by the accused which was ordered by the Trial Court, the interim compensation can be recoverable as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in my view, the order passed by the Trial Court is based upon some principle and as per Section 143(A) (5) of the N.I. Act.

¶39

Such being the case, the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is

¶40

dismissed .

¶41

The petitioner is at liberty to recover the interim compensation as per Section 143(A)(5) of N.I. Act read with Section 421/431 of Cr.P.C. as fine.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT:SK

Sri. Akshay Gangadhar v. M/S Joni Films

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Akshay Gangadhar v. M/S Joni Films

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Avighna Enterprises Vs Sri C K Satish

Naveen H S Vs State of Karnataka

Nido Home Finance Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nanda Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

T Suresh Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Girish @ Kunigalgiri Vs State by Karnataka