Disposed

Sri.K.Jagadish v. Smt.Leelavathi

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2024CRL.RP/1520/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision against conviction for cheque dishonour was settled between the parties by joint memo; the petitioner paid Rs.4,98,000 towards full and final settlement and the court compounded the offence under Section 147 NI Act, acquitting him.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner acquitted under Section 138 NI Act on compounding after paying Rs.4,98,000 in full settlement; permitted withdrawal of deposited amounts.

Sri.K.Jagadish Vs Smt.Leelavathi — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9749 CRL.RP No. 1520 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1520 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.K.JAGADISH S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NO.182/4, II CROSS 1^ST MAIN, BAPUJINAGAR MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU-560 026.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT.LEELAVATHI W/O. J. PUTTALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.10/1, 1^ST MAIN KARNATAKA LAYOUT KURUBARAHALLI MAHALAKSHMIPURA BENGALURU-560 086.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W. 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN C.C.NO.4613/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND CRL.A.NO.774/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 56^TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-57, BENGALURU AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 138 OF NI ACT.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:9749 CRL.RP No. 1520 of 2019

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Both the revision petitioner and respondent and their respective counsels are present.

¶22

Learned counsel for both the parties have filed a joint memo. In terms of the joint memo, the parties have settled the matter and the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- to the respondent towards full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has deposited 50,000/- of the amount before the Trial Court as per the direction of the First Appellate Court and has also deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- before the Trial Court as per the direction of this Court. Hence, in all, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶24

Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner is tendering a Demand Draft for Rs.2,48,000/- to the respondent and the same is acknowledged by the respondent.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:9749 CRL.RP No. 1520 of 2019

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an application-I.A.No.1/2024 under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 praying this Court to acquit the petitioner in view of compounding of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 by making entire payment. Accordingly, the application-I.A.No.1/2024 is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in view of the payment made by the petitioner in a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent.

¶28

The Trial Court has also observed that out of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the petitioner is directed to deposit fine of Rs.2,000/- and the same shall vest with the State. Hence, the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/- before the Trial Court within two weeks and produce the receipt before the Registry for having deposited an amount of Rs.2,000/-.

¶29

The respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount which is in deposit before the Trial Court, since the

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9749 CRL.RP No. 1520 of 2019

¶31

petitioner is not having any objection to withdraw the amount which is in deposit. The Registry is also directed to transmit the Trial Court records, forthwith to the concerned Court, to enable the respondent to withdraw the amount which is in deposit.

¶32

Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri.K.Jagadish v. Smt.Leelavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.Jagadish v. Smt.Leelavathi

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

Shabana Taj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashok C Vs K Ramakrishna

Smt Nethra Narayan Vs Sri N J Murthy

Guttu Rayappa @ Nagappa Shetty Vs Mrs Rathnavathi

Smt. Nalini. R. Shetty Vs Smt. C. Padma

Smt. Khaja Bee Vs Union of India