Sri. Dhanraj Vs Srinivasa

SRI. DHANRAJ S/O VARANACHARI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: CARPENTER R/A HAGADUR COLONUY WARD NO.84, OPPOSITE TO SREERAMA TEMPLE IAMMADIHALLI MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD POST WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. DR. J.S. HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed SRINIVASA by ANUSHA V S/O SHIVARAMAIAH Location: High AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Court of R/A NO.50, NEAR LAKSHMI BAKERY Karnataka IAMMADIHALLI MAIN ROAD, POST WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 066.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K.N. ARVINDA NAVADA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ORDER DATED 22.06.2018 IN C.C.NO.6893/2016, PASSED BY THE 1ST A.C.J.M., RURAL COURT, BENGALURU, BENGALURU RURAL, SENTENCING THE ACCUSED TO UNDERGO S.I FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS IN

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29633 CRL.P No. 3493 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE EVENT OF SINGLE DEFAULT OF PAYMENT IN TERMS OF JOINT MEMO AND ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF THE N.I ACT, WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXRUE-C, AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR TRAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging order dated 22.06.2018 passed by I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rural Court, Bengaluru, in C.C.no.6893/2016 insofar as sentencing petitioner - accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months in event of single default in making payment in terms of joint memo, this petition is filed.

¶26

Sri J.S.Halashetti, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was accused in C.C.no.6893/2016 filed by respondent - complainant for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( NI Act ). During pendency of said matter, there was settlement between parties and a joint memo enumerating terms of settlement was filed on 22.06.2018. Filing of joint memo would amount to compounding of offence under Section 320 of Code of Criminal

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:29633 CRL.P No. 3493 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Procedure, 1973. On such a petition, impugned order is passed acquitting petitioner of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, in view of settlement, but at same time directing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months in case of default in compliance in terms of compromise, it was submitted acquittal and conviction cannot be made part of same order. It was submitted acceptance of petition for compounding can only be acquittal and in case of violation of terms of settlement, other remedies were available and order directing defaulter to undergo Simple Imprisonment cannot be passed as held by this Court in Crl.R.P.no.420/2015 disposed of on 01.02.2017 ( Srinivas AGRO Agencies and others v. Karnataka AGRO Industries Corporation Limited, Bengaluru ), on above ground, sought for allowing petition.

¶31

Respondent is served and represented. None appears. Since matter is of year 2019, it is taken up for disposal.

¶32

Heard learned counsel and perusal impugned order and material on record.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29633 CRL.P No. 3493 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

From above, filing of joint memo by petitioneraccused and respondent-complainant in C.C.no.6893/2016 before learned Trial Judge on 22.06.2018 for compounding of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act is not in dispute. On acceptance, trial Court could only pass an order of acquittal. As held by this Court in Srinivas AGRO Agencies's case (supra), an order of conviction cannot be made a part of an order of compounding, lest, trial Court would exceed its jurisdiction.

¶36

Following said ratio, Petition is allowed . That, part of order directing petitioner-accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months, in case of default in payment in terms of joint memo stands quashed. Rest of order being valid would continue to be effective. In case of default, respondent - complainant would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings.

¶37

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶38

HNM

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri. Dhanraj v. Srinivasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Dhanraj v. Srinivasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ashwathanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Television Cultural and Sports Club R Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Pankaj Raj Vs Sri C v Nagesh

Sri Dasegowda Vs the State by

Mr. S. Arunachalam Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Raqueeb Zakir Vs State of Karnataka