Sri Manjunatha Builders Vs Sri I C Gopinath

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7083 CRL.A No. 1967 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1967 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MANJUNATHA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS OFFICE AT NO.1, RR BUILDING BB ROAD, BETTAHALASURU CROSS NEAR BANK OF INDIA ATM JALA HOBLI BENGALURU-562 157 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. H.G. VIJAY KUMAR S/O H.V. GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RA/T HUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKAJALA POST JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU 562157

¶8

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V, ADVOCATE)

¶9

Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. I.C. GOPINATH S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEAWRS R/AT NO.8, INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE HEGGANAHALLI POST KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562157 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGENDRA C.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7083 CRL.A No. 1967 of 2022

¶13

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022, PASSED BY THE XV A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU PASSED IN C.C.NO.2110/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AS NOT PRESSED AND REMAND THE SAID COMPLAINT FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.

¶14

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

This appeal is filed by the complainant praying to set

¶18

aside the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in C.C.No.2110/2020 by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, whereunder the complaint has been dismissed as not pressed on the joint memo.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent.

¶20

The appellant –complainant has initiated the proceedings against the respondent –accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as “N.I Act” for brevity). During the pendency of the said proceedings, a joint memo dated 13.11.2020 came to be filed and it is

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7083 CRL.A No. 1967 of 2022

¶22

signed by the appellant –complainant, respondent – accused and their respective counsels. Based on the said joint memo, the impugned order has been passed stating that the terms of the joint memo appears to have been complied and the complaint has been dismissed as not pressed. The said order has been challenged by the appellant –complainant in this appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant –complainant submits that the terms of the said joint memo has not been complied by the respondent –accused. Therefore, the dismissing the complaint based on the said joint memo is not proper and correct. With this he prays to allow the appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent –accused submits that even though the respondent –accused has not signed as consenting witness to deeds but otherwise the terms of the joint memo are complied. With this he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶25

The appellant –complainant and respondent –

¶26

accused have signed to a joint memo along with their

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:7083 CRL.A No. 1967 of 2022

¶29

respective counsels and it is dated 13.11.2020. The joint

¶30

memo reads as under:

¶31

“JOINT MEMO

¶32

The above named Complainant, Accused and their respective counsels submits as follows:

¶33

1. It is submitted that the above case is filed by the Complainant against the Accused for dishonor of four Cheques amounting to a total sum of Rs.7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Only).

¶34

2. It is submitted that both the Complainant and the Accused on the intervention of friends and wellwishers have settled the matter out of Court, wherein the Complainant has agreed to withdraw the above case subject to the Accused singing as a Consenting Witness to the deeds in respect of Sy. No.4 measuring 5:22 (A/G) and Sy. No.3 measuring 0:17 (A/G) of Indrasanahali Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk before the Subregistrar, Devanahalli.

¶35

3. It is submitted that the Accused on signing the aforesaid deeds to be executed on 17/11/2020 the Complainant is ready to withdrawn the above Complaint as not pressed/dismissed representing that there would be no claim against the Accused in respect of the subject Cheques.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7083 CRL.A No. 1967 of 2022

¶37

WHEREFORE, both the Complainant and the Accused in consideration of the above humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the above suit as not pressed/dismissed in the interest of justice. “

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that para No.2 of said joint memo has not been complied by the respondent –accused. He further submits that he has not signed as consenting witness to deeds in respect of Sy.No.4 measuring 02 acres 22 guntas and Sy No.3 measuring 0.17 guntas both situated in Indrasanahalli village.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed

¶40

two documents on record namely agreement of sale both dated 24.11.2020. The said documents pertains to land bearing Sy.No.4 measuring 02 acres 22 guntas and bearing Sy.No.3 measuring 17 guntas of Indrasanahalli village.

¶41

On perusal of the said two documents, the respondent –accused has not signed as consenting

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7083 CRL.A No. 1967 of 2022

¶43

witness. Considering the said aspect, para No.2 of the joint memo has not been complied by the respondent –

¶44

accused. As para No.2 of the joint memo has not been complied by the respondent –accused, the dismissal of the complaint as not pressed stating that the terms of the joint memo appears to have been complied is not proper and correct. Therefore, the said impugned order requires

¶45

to be set aside and criminal case requires to be restored.

¶46

In the result, the following

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 22.04.2022 passed in C.C.No.2110/2020 by the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is set aside. The criminal case No.2110/2020 is ordered to be restored.

¶49

iii) Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.03.2025 without awaiting Court notice.

¶50