Disposed

Bhushan S/O Vasant Bangodi v. Jayashankar Kalkundrikar Multi-Purpose

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2024CRL.RP/100225/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cheque dishonour conviction under Section 138 NI Act, affirmed on appeal, was challenged in revision. The parties filed a joint memo settling for Rs.1,10,000/- and compounded the offence. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under S.138 NI Act set aside; petitioner acquitted; Rs.1,10,000/- settled with respondent; bail bond and surety cancelled.

Bhushan S/O Vasant Bangodi Vs Jayashankar Kalkundrikar… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15046 CRL.RP No. 100225 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100225 OF 2024

¶5

(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BHUSHAN S/O. VASANT BANGODI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.467, TEGGIN GALLI, M. VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590005.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. CHETANA S. BIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

JAYASHANKAR KALKUNDRIKAR MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP. SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED, NATH PAI CIRCLE, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CLERK SRI. VINAYAK GOPAL PATIL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. PATIL GALLI, YALLUR, BELAGAVI-590005.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

MANJANNA E

¶13

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH JUDGMENT AND ORDER IN CRL.A.NO.323/2023 PASSED BY XI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND CONFIRMING THE JUDMENT OF JMFC VIII BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO.1489/2017, CONSEQUENTLY CONVICTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15046 CRL.RP No. 100225 of 2024

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶20

This petition is filed questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in CC No.1489/2017 dated 03.11.2023 by the JMFC-VIII, Belagavi at Belagavi, whereby the petitioner/accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,48,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation and Rs.2000/- to be paid to the State towards its expenses. This order of conviction on a challenge made before the Appellate Court in Crl.Appeal No.323/2023 dated 06.03.2024 before the XI Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi at Belagavi came to be affirmed by the order of the trial Court. The petitioner is questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgments rendered by both the Courts.

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15046 CRL.RP No. 100225 of 2024

¶22

During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner, and the respondent have filed a joint memo to settle the matter amicably, amongst themselves. The joint memo states that the parties i.e., the petitioner and the respondent have amicably settled the dispute towards full and final settlement of Rs.1,10,000/- towards dishonoured cheque. Accordingly, they have affixed their signatures to the joint memo which is counter signed by the respective counsels after identifying the petitioner and the respondent.

¶23

Joint memo filed by the petitioner and the respondent shall be part and parcel of the judgment in view of the parties having amicably settled the matter as borne by records.

¶24

The petitioner has deposited Rs.29,600/- before the trial Court and balance amount of Rs.80,400/- has been deposited by way of RTGS to the respondent-Bank. The same is accepted and acknowledged by the learned counsel for the respondent, who is physically present

¶25

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15046 CRL.RP No. 100225 of 2024

¶26

before the Court. Under the circumstances, nothing would survive in this petition in view of the parties amicably settling the matter by filing a joint memo to compound the offence which is permissible under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i. This petition is disposed of in view of the joint memo filed by the petitioner and the respondent to compound the offence which is permissible under law.

¶29

ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the JMFC-VIII, Belagavi in C.C.No.1489/2017 dated 03.11.2023, affirmed in Crl.Appeal No.323/2023 dated 06.03.2024 by XI Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is hereby set aside.

¶30

iii. The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15046 CRL.RP No. 100225 of 2024

¶32

iv. The respondent acknowledges receipt of Rs.80,400/- and the trial Court is directed to release the amount of Rs.29,600/- deposited before the trial Court in favour of the respondent-complainant upon proper identification.

¶33

v. In view of the offence being compounded, the bail bond and surety stands cancelled.

¶34

vi. Ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶36

KGK CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

Bhushan S/O Vasant Bangodi v. Jayashankar Kalkundrikar Multi-Purpose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan S/O Vasant Bangodi v. Jayashankar Kalkundrikar Multi-Purpose

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

Greenwood Internatinoal English Medium Vs State of Karnataka

State Rti and Social Activists Forum Alias Karnataka Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar

Giriraj S/O Virupakshappa Gireppanavar Vs the Authorised Officer

Uddappa S/O Laxmappa Parasannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vijaykumar B Patil Vs the Government of Karnataka

Raju Honnayya Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka