Disposed

Shri Prashant Basavaraj Hampannavar v. Shri Shrinivas Ramchandra Benagi

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2024CRL.RP/100445/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Section 138 NI Act for cheque dishonour was challenged in revision. During pendency, parties settled for Rs.3,75,000 and jointly sought compounding. The High Court allowed compounding, set aside the conviction and appellate confirmation, acquitted the accused, and ordered his release from custody.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted; released from Central Prison on compounding with Rs.3,75,000 settlement.

Shri Prashant Basavaraj Hampannavar Vs Shri Shrinivas… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15470 CRL.RP No. 100445 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100445 OF 2023

¶6

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

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI PRASHANT BASAVARAJ HAMPANNAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.154, LINGRAJ COLLEGE BACK SIDE, CITY POLICE LANE, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARAD MALGOUND PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHRI SHRINIVAS RAMCHANDRA BENAGI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.178/2, HINDALAGA ROAD, JAY NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590108.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. KISHORE SUTAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO

¶16

MANJANNA E

¶17

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

¶18

i. CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE CASE BEARING C.C. NO.298/2017 FROM THE COURT OF THE VIII JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI AND THE RECORDS OF CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161/2023 FROM THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI.

¶19

ii. ALLOW THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161/2023 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED BY THE VIII JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI IN C.C. NO.298/2017 FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 N.I. ACT AND SET THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AT LIBERTY.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15470 CRL.RP No. 100445 of 2023

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed in C.C.No.298/2017 dated 02.08.2021 by the VIII JMFC, Belagavi, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.161/2023 dated 01.09.2023, by the X Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, whereby the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Further it ordered, out of the fine amount, a sum of RS.4,98,000/to be paid to the complainant, as compensation and Rs.2,000/- to be adjusted to the State, towards its expenses. Questioning the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner accused is before this Court.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15470 CRL.RP No. 100445 of 2023

¶27

During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner and the respondent have together filed an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to compound the offence as they have mutually agreed to settle the matter and have accordingly settled the matter by agreeing to pay full and final settlement of the final amount of Rs.3,75,000/- towards dishonoured cheque. It is also agreed between the petitioner and respondent that, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/was paid to the respondent/complainant on the 21^st of October 2024, by way of cash and, another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on the 22.10.2024 by way of cheque, and the petitioner would pay remaining balance amount of Rs.75,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.994866 dated 24.12.2024 drawn on the State Bank of India in favour of the respondent/complainant, which is handed over today in the open Court to the respondent/complainant in view of the full and final payment of fine amount of Rs.3,75,000/-.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15470 CRL.RP No. 100445 of 2023

¶29

The petitioner and respondent seek leave of this

¶30

Court to compound the offence and close this matter and consequently set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit the accused.

¶31

This Court has enquired with the petitioner and respondent. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner is in judicial custody due to non-payment. He was taken to custody in pursuance to the execution of the impugned judgment. The petitioner has filed the affidavit to compound the offence, from the jail authorized by the Central Prison, Belagavi Jailor. His presence is dispensed as the father of the petitioner is present before the Court,

¶32

who has handed over the amount to the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has identified the father of the complainant who is present before the Court and also the signature of the petitioner/accused in the affidavit signed, to compound the offence. Respondent/complainant is before this Court.

¶33

On an enquiry posed to the father of the

¶34

petitioner and the respondent/complainant they submit

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15470 CRL.RP No. 100445 of 2023

¶36

that there is no force, undue influence or coercion in filing the application to compound the offence. They have understood the terms and conditions of the settlement and would abide by the same. Accordingly, sought to allow the application and compound the offence.

¶37

I do not find any legal impediment in allowing the application, as affidavit is filed by the petitioner/accused. The amount is paid by the father of the petitioner to the complainant. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/is received and acknowledged by the respondent/ complainant, which is en-cashed. The balance amount of Rs.75,000/- by way of cheque is handed over. The same would be subject to encashment. Under the circumstances, in view of the compounding of the offence, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. This petition is disposed of.

¶40

ii. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.298/2017 dated 02.08.2021 by the VIII JMFC, Belagavi,

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15470 CRL.RP No. 100445 of 2023

¶42

confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.161/2023 dated 01.09.2023, by the X Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi is hereby set aside.

¶43

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

¶44

iv. The respondent/complainant acknowledges receipt of Rs.3,00,000/-, which is en-cashed. He also acknowledges receipt of cheque dated 24.12.2024 for Rs.75,000/-, which would be subject to realization.

¶45

v. The bail bond of the petitioner and the surety shall stand cancelled.

¶46

vi. Petitioner shall be released from the Central Prison, Hindalaga, Belagavi, if he is otherwise not required in any other case.

¶47

vii. Necessary communication shall be sent to the said prison authorities, forthwith.

¶48

viii. Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶50

KGK

¶51

CT-MCK / List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Shri Prashant Basavaraj Hampannavar v. Shri Shrinivas Ramchandra Benagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prashant Basavaraj Hampannavar v. Shri Shrinivas Ramchandra Benagi

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

Sri Lobzang Samastan S/O Tundup Goboo Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Siddeshwar S/O Kenchappa Koujalagi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Girijawwa W/O Manjunath Havaldar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dundappa S/O Prabhappa Kotagi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Sambaji Mallu Shinde Vs State of Karnataka

S.R.Patil Social Club (R) Vs the State of Karnataka