Dismissed¶43

Sri.N.Subramani v. Smt.Munithayamma

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2025CRL.A/235/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal; Section 138 NI Act cheque offence; Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.; admission stage of criminal appeal; C.C.No.9519/2019; XII ACMM Bengaluru; Exs.D1 to D3 settlement/supplemental agreements; Ex.D4 payment in entirety; suppression of defence documents by complainant P.W.1; cross-examination admission of receipt of amount; settled liability Rs.9,10,23,145/-; unproved claim of Rs.10,25,00,000/-; Jakkur Yelahanka Hobli Bengaluru property transaction; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; Justice H.P. Sandesh; decided 22.03.2025; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

P.W.1-complainant suppressed the fact of documents Exs.D1 to D3, which were elicited during the course of cross-examination and marked in the trial. ¶35

Sri.N.Subramani Vs Smt.Munithayamma — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal filed against the Trial Court's order of acquittal under Section 138 of the N.I. Act ought to be admitted and the acquittal set aside, the main ground urged being that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the material. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

Since a well-reasoned order had been passed by the Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence, and the complainant placed no material against the material of the respondent/accused showing payment, the question of admitting the appeal did not arise; no case was made out to admit the appeal.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

P.W.1-complainant suppressed the fact of documents Exs.D1 to D3, which were elicited during the course of cross-examination and marked in the trial.

¶35

Key takeaways

On the contents of Exs.D1 to D3, the Trial Court concluded that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the amount payable was only Rs.9,10,23,145/-, and this Court accepted that conclusion on the material placed on record.ratio¶35
Document Ex.D4, relied upon by the Trial Court, evidences that payment of the entire amount of Rs.9,10,23,145/- was made in entirety.ratio¶37
As regards the higher claim, the Trial Court gave the finding that no document was placed evidencing a total amount payable of Rs.10,25,00,000/-.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C., heard at the admission stage, against acquittal for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (judgment and order dated 03.11.2022 of the XII ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.9519/2019). The Court noted that P.W.1-complainant suppressed Exs.D1 to D3, which were elicited in cross-examination and showed that, on settlement between the parties, the amount payable was only Rs.9,10,23,145/-; Ex.D4 evidenced payment of that entire amount, and no document supported the claim of Rs.10,25,00,000/-. P.W.1 had admitted receipt of the amount and execution of Exs.D1 to D3 disclosing payment made and acknowledged. Holding the Trial Court's order well reasoned on both oral and documentary evidence, and the complainant having placed no contrary material, the Court found no case to admit the appeal and dismissed it. Coram: H.P. Sandesh J.; decided 22.03.2025.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12322 CRL.A No. 235 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. N.SUBRAMANI S/O MR. V. NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.5, VENKATESHPURA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI, JAKKUR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 064.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA W/O LATE N. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.236, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD JAKKUR VILLAGE AND POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 064.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. TEJAS S.R., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.11.2022 PASSED BY THE XII ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.9519/2019, CONSEQUENTLY MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12322 CRL.A No. 235 of 2023

¶18

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

This appeal is filed against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Since, records are received, considered for admission.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused solely on the ground that appellant has not satisfactorily rebutted the defence led by the

¶25

respondent/accused and also made an erroneous observation that the claim made by the complainant was already satisfied by relying upon the document Exs.D1 to D3. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that the other observation that complainant has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:12322 CRL.A No. 235 of 2023

¶28

cannot be accepted and reason given by the Trial Court that accused probabilized his case getting the admission from the mouth of P.W.1 and eliciting the answer is erroneous and it requires interference.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶30

respondent/accused would vehemently contend that no dispute with regard to the fact that earlier there was a transaction between the complainant and the accused. The counsel would vehemently contend that the said document pertains to the transaction dated 14.03.1999 in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.18/7 measuring 33 guntas in Jakkur Village, Yalahanka Hobli and once again, both of them entered into MOU dated 20.01.2012 and once again entered into a settlement agreement with the appellant and complainant, canceling the MOU dated 20.01.2022 and fresh agreement came into existence on 27.09.2018 for an amount of Rs.7 Crores. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that once again first supplemental settlement agreement executed between the appellant/complainant, respondent/accused and others recording the renegotiation of sums payable by the respondent/accused under family members to the

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12322 CRL.A No. 235 of 2023

¶32

appellant/complainant, wherein the document dated 23.01.2019 specifically mentioned that amount was enhanced from Rs.7 crores to Rs.2,10,23,145/- and also complainant has misused sum of Rs.50 lakhs and Rs.9,10,23,145/- and balance payable to the appellant/complainant is only Rs.6,50,00,000/-. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that in terms of second supplemental agreement executed between the parties dated 23.01.2019, a sum of Rs.3,00,23,145/- has been paid to the appellant/complainant out of total agreed sum of Rs.9,10,23,145/- and the balance payable is Rs.6,10,00,000/-. In view of third supplemental agreement executed between the appellant/complainant, respondent/accused and others dated 23.01.2019, a sum of Rs.3,85,23,145/- has been paid to the appellant/complainant out of total agreed sum of Rs.9,10,23,145/- and entire amount was cleared, but a false case was filed against the accused taking advantage of earlier cheque which was in the custody of the complainant. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court observation made by the Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record that the complainant made the claim of Rs.10,25,00,000/-, but the complainant failed to produce the

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12322 CRL.A No. 235 of 2023

¶34

document to show the same as observed in paragraph No.17 of the judgment of the Trial Court and the Trial Court taking into note of the material on record, rightly acquitted the accused, in coming to the conclusion that there was no legal liability. Hence, counsel submits that there is no ground to admit.

¶35

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, no doubt, this appeal is filed against the order of acquittal, the main ground urged before this Court is that Trial Court not properly appreciated the material. Having perusal the material on record, it is important to note that P.W.1-complainant suppressed the fact of document of Exs.D1 to D3 and the same was elicited during the course of cross-examination and documents of Exs.D1 to D3 are marked and Trial Court having considered those documents, comes to the conclusion that in view of settlement arrived between the parties, amount payable is only Rs.9,10,23,145/- and having considered the contents of the documents and also the payment of the money which has been mentioned in the documents which have been referred i.e., documents Exs.D1 to D3 and even apart from the document of Exs.D1 to D3, the Trial Court also taken note of Ex.D4 which

¶36

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12322 CRL.A No. 235 of 2023

¶37

evidence the fact of payment of entire amount of Rs.9,10,23,145/- and with regard to the more claim is concerned i.e., Rs.10 Crore, the Trial Court also given the finding that no document is placed with regard to the fact that total amount payable is Rs.10,25,00,000/-. When such well reasoned order has been passed considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the complainant did not place any material against the material placed by the respondent/accused for having made the payment, question of admitting the appeal does not arise, in view of categorical admission of document of Exs.D1 to D3, particularly document of Ex.D4 which has been relied upon by the Trial Court evidencing the fact that payment was made in entirety. The Trial Court also taken note of suppression of the documents and also the contention that only Rs.7 Crore was paid, but there was an admission on the part of P.W.1 regarding receipt of the amount and execution of document of Exs.D1 to D3 which disclose that payment was made and acknowledged in terms of those documents. Hence, no case is made out to admit the appeal.

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:12322 CRL.A No. 235 of 2023

¶39

¶40