Allowed

P v. Muniraju v K v Ramakrishna Reddy

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2024CRL.RP/1525/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Section 138 NI Act for a dishonoured cheque of Rs.70,000 was challenged in revision. The accused handed over Rs.50,000 to the complainant and undertook to pay Rs.20,000 by 30.04.2024; conviction was set aside and he was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted subject to payment of balance Rs.20,000 by 30.04.2024.

P v Muniraju Vs K v Ramakrishna Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:15120 CRL.RP No. 1525 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1525 OF 2016

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

P.V. MUNIRAJU, S/O OF VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT PILLAKUNTA VILLAGE, MANIGANAHALLI POST, RONOOR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN C.P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

K.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O K.B. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KODIGAL VILLAGE & POST, MUNGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. M.C. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 11.03.2016 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., CHINTAMANI IN C.C.NO.380/2015 AND ALSO DATED 17.10.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:15120 CRL.RP No. 1525 of 2016

¶18

CHICKBALLAPUR (SITTING AT CHINTAMANI) IN CRL.A.NO.32/2016 AND FURTHER ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-accused, who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced to pay cheque amount of Rs.70,000/-, failing which, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, is before this Court.

¶22

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, on instructions, submitted that, the petitioner-accused has handed over a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent-complainant, who is present before this Court. The receipt of which is duly acknowledged by the complainant. He further submits that the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- will be paid on or before 30.04.2024.

¶23

The petitioner-accused having undertaken to pay balance amount of Rs.20,000/-, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence requires to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶26

ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:15120 CRL.RP No. 1525 of 2016

¶29

and JMFC, Chintamani in C.C.No.380/2015 and the judgment dated 17.10.2016 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, (sitting at Chinthamani) in Criminal Appeal No.32/2016 are hereby set aside.

¶30

iii) The petitioner is acquitted of the aforesaid offence.

¶31

iv) The balance amount of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner, on or before 30.04.2024, failing which, respondentcomplainant is at liberty to file an application for reviving of this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

MKM

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

P v. Muniraju v K v Ramakrishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P v. Muniraju v K v Ramakrishna Reddy

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 Prakash Ramachandra Sapkal, Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Thimmappa Vs the Executive Engineer

Taluka Agriculture Produce Market Co. Operative Vs the Director of Agricultural Marketing

B.M. Subramanya Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Gangappa Vs Sri Narashima Gowda

P v Muniraju Vs K v Ramakrishna Reddy