Abdul Hameed Vs M v Devaprasad

ABDUL HAMEED S/O LATE K MOHAMMED, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O 1^ST CROSS, VIDYANAGARA, OPPOSITE MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL, RAMANAHALLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY, AND ALSO R/O VASTHARE VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKAMAGALURU.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI S. DIGANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KAMALUDDIN AHAMAD, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

M V DEVAPRASAD S/O M VEERASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MUGTHIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2022 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKAMAGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.229/2021 CONFIRMING JUDGMENT PASSED IN

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:42910 CRL.RP No. 221 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

C.C.NO.1083/2019 DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶23

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Though this matter is listed for orders, with consent of learned counsel for parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

Challenging judgment and order dated 19.11.2022 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.229/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2021 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, in CC no.1083/2019, this revision petition is filed.

¶28

Sri Diganth, learned counsel appearing advocate for petitioner (accused) submitted, revision petition is by accused challenging concurrent orders of his conviction for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short),

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:42910 CRL.RP No. 221 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Sole ground on which revision petition was filed was that respondent (complainant) on very same assertions and allegations against accused had also filed civil suit in OS no.133/2020 on file of Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, for recovery of alleged advance amount paid under alleged agreement. It was submitted, invocation of civil suit as well as criminal prosecution would be contrary to ratio laid down by this Court in Venkatesh Bhat A. v. Rohidas Shenoy reported in 2010 CRL.L.J. 1061 and sought for allowing revision petition.

¶33

On other hand, Sri G Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent opposed writ petition. Relying upon decision of this Court Sri Lalji Kesha Vaid v. Sri Dayanand R., reported in 2025 (3) Kar.L.J. 152, it was submitted, this Court in aforesaid decision had held there would be no bar against maintainability of civil suit for recovery of money as well as private complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of Act. It was submitted, OS no.133/2020 was decreed on 28.02.2025 and no appeal has been filed against it. In view of above and since other contentions of accused disputing agreement, etc. would stand discharged. It was submitted,

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:42910 CRL.RP No. 221 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

while passing decree, trial Court had taken note of pendency of these proceedings and had stated that any amount paid by accused in these proceedings were to be accounted for while computing complainant's claim under decree. Same would sufficiently safeguard interest of accused and there would be no ground for double claim as apprehended.

¶38

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and order.

¶39

From above, it is seen that this revision petition is by accused against concurrent findings convicting accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held, revisional jurisdiction would be confined mainly to findings being perverse or under infraction and statutory provisions. Sole ground urged herein complainant's claim was purely civil in nature and having approached Civil Court for civil remedy against accused. Similar pursuits of criminal prosecution would be contrary to law.

¶40

Perusal of decision in Venkatesh Bhat A. 's case

¶41

(supra) would indicate that in case of serious dispute about

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42910 CRL.RP No. 221 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

transactions, this Court had in facts and circumstances of said case confirmed order of acquittal. Unlike in present case where complainant's suit has been decreed and stated to have attained finality thereby dispelling dispute about monetary transactions between complainant and accused. Under such circumstances, ratio in Venkatesh Bhat A. 's case (supra) would not apply. On other hand, this Court in Sri Lalji Kesha Vaid 's case (supra) has clearly held both remedies would be tenable.

¶45

Apart from above, it is also seen that trial Court while decreeing OS no.133/2020 made it clear that any amount paid by accused could be accounted for claims of complainant under decree. Hence, no ground to interfere. Revision petition stands dismissed .

¶46

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶47

AV

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Abdul Hameed v. M v Devaprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hameed v. M v Devaprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Hemanth Salian Vs Sri Rathnakar Kotian

Smt. Shashikala S Vs Smt. Aruna Devi a

Smt. Shashikala S Vs Smt. Aruna Devi a

Dasegowda Vs the State by Vijayanagar Police

Mr Mohammad Shazil Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Nagesh @ Naga