Revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 NI Act where the cheque was issued pursuant to a compromise in an earlier criminal case against the petitioner's husband. The High Court found concurrent findings justified and no ground for revisional interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:13671 CRL.RP No. 556 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 556 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 26.03.2016 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. JUDGE AND XXXII ADDL.C.M.M., COURT FOR SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9374/2013 MODIFIED BY THE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.774/2016 BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.02.2017 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
NC: 2024:KHC:13671 CRL.RP No. 556 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
compromise entered in C.C.No.15349/2007 which has ended in compromise and when the accused failed to pay the aforesaid agreed amount, the complainant visited the house of accused for recovery of amount. At that juncture, subject matter of Cheque was collected. Hence, the same is not towards any legally enforceable debt. Both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and documents Exs.D1 to D8 produced by the petitioner and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Hence, it requires interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:13671 CRL.RP No. 556 of 2017
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner also not disputes the fact that earlier criminal case was registered against the husband and a compromise was entered and he agreed to pay the amount, but did not repay the amount and when the accused failed to comply the order passed in C.C.No.15349/2007 at Ex.P1, the present petitioner has given the subject matter of Cheque and all these aspects have been taken note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the same has been discussed in Para No.17 and comes to the conclusion that though accused would contend that Cheque at Ex.P2 was in the custody of the complainant and the same has been misused by the complainant, at the same time, she failed to place any iota of convincing and cogent evidence, except her self-testimony and discussed in detail with regard to the documents which have been marked on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any grounds to exercise the revisional powers, since both the Courts taken note of earlier transaction and also the compromise entered into between the parties in the earlier criminal proceedings and issuance of Ex.P2-Cheque for Rs.49,412/- towards the agreed
liability. When such being the case, when already there was compromise in C.C.No.15349/2007 and towards the said liability, Ex.P2-Cheque was given, no grounds are made out to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court by exercising the revisional powers.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cheque issued pursuant to a compromise in an earlier criminal case was towards a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 NI Act.
Whether revisional interference was warranted against concurrent findings of conviction by the Trial and First Appellate Courts.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Rathna
M/s. Saphalya Credit Co-op Society Ltd.
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
