Disposed

Satish Katta v. Suneet Karnawat

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2024CRLR/469/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five revision petitions against conviction under Section 138 NI Act were decided by a common order after the parties compromised. The complainant accepted settlement amounts; the court quashed the trial and appellate court orders and acquitted the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned conviction and appellate orders quashed; petitioner acquitted from charges in terms of compromise.

Satish Katta Vs Suneet Karnawat — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:618]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

1. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.469/2018

¶4

Satish Katta, Director M/s Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd., 18, Siyaram Street, Durgapura, Tonk Roa, R/o House No. 16-17, Khawas Ji Ka Baag, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Suneet Karnawat S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o House No. 4679, Vijay Bhawan, Oposite Purani Kotwali, Johari Bazar, Jaipur

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

2. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 399/2018

¶11

Satish Katta, Director M/s Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd., 18 Siyaram Street, Durgapura, Tonk Road, R/o House No.16-17, Khawas Ji Ka Baag, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Raj.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Vikram Karnawat S/oshri Mahendra Singh, R/o House No.4679, Vijay Bhawan, Opposite Purani Kotwali, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

3. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 400/2018

¶17

Satish Katta, Director M/s Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd., 18, Siyaram Street, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur Raj. R/o House No. 1617, Khawas Ji Ka Baag, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur Raj.

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

Vikram Karnawat S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o House No. 4679, Vijay Bhawan, Opposite Purani Kotwali, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

4. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 468/2018

¶23

Satish Katta, Director M/s Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd., 18 Siyaram Street, Durgapura, Tonk Road, R/o House No.16-17, Khawas Ji Ka Bagh, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶24

----Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

(2 of 5) [CRLR-469/2018 & 4 Others]

¶27

[2024:RJ-JP:618]

¶28

Suneet Karnawat S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o House No.4679, Vijay Bhawan, Opposite Purani Kotwali, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.

¶29

----Respondent

¶30

5. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1539/2018

¶31

Satish Katta, Director M/s Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd., 18, Siyaram Street, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Raj., R/o House No.1617, Khawas Ji Ka Baag, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Raj.

¶32

----Petitioner

¶33

Versus

¶34

Rajiv Karnawat S/o Shri Ashok Karnawat, R/o House No.b-212, Janta Colony, Jaipur, Raj.

¶35

----Respondent

¶36

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Prabhansh Sharma, Advocate &
	Mr. Nagendra Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Yuvraj Singh Kachhawa, Advocate for
	Mr. Sachin Mehta, Senior Advocate

¶37

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶38

03/01/2024 :

¶39

By this common order, five S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions bearing Nos.469/2018, 399/2018, 400/2018, 468/2018 & 1539/2018 filed by the petitioner, namely Satish Katta, shall be decided together.

¶40

By way of filing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos.469/2018, 399/2018, 400/2018 & 468/2018 under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dt.23.09.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Criminal Cases No.853/2016, 874/2016, 3717/2013 & 1158/2016 respectively, whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act & sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and has also ordered that the petitioner shall pay

¶41

[2024:RJ-JP:618]

¶42

[CRLR-469/2018 & 4 Others]

¶43

(3 of 5)

¶44

a sum of Rs.8,25,000/- to complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo a sentence of six months additional simple imprisonment. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 22.02.2018 passed by Court of Special Judge, (C.B.I. Cases) No.5, Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal Nos.31/2017, 33/2017, 32/2017 & 30/2017 respectively, whereby the ld. Judge, while dismissing the appeal, has upheld the conviction & sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶45

By way of filing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1539/2018, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dt. 08.03.2017 passed by Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Criminal Cases No.222/2015 (2843/2015), whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for offence u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act & sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and has also ordered that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo a sentence of two months simple imprisonment. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dt.12.07.2018 passed by Court of Special Judge, (C.B.I. Cases) No.2, Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.1/2018 (Old No.524/2017), whereby ld. Judge, while dismissing the appeal, has upheld the conviction & sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶46

Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the petitioner had issued five cheques of different amount to the complainantrespondent for the business purpose, which on presentation were returned due to insufficient funds. The respondent filed a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner & its Director before the learned trial Court. The trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the alleged offence & sentenced him to undergo maximum period of one

¶47

(4 of 5)

¶48

[2024:RJ-JP:618]

¶49

[CRLR-469/2018 & 4 Others]

¶50

year simple imprisonment alongwith fine. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which was also dismissed while upholding the conviction & sentence passed by the ld. Magistrate.

¶51

In the present case, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, contends that now the parties have entered into a compromise and the dispute between them has been amicably settled. Therefore, the present petitions may be allowed, the impugned orders be quashed & set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent does not oppose the above fact of compromise.

¶53

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record as well as compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶54

In compliance of the order passed by this Court today i.e. 03.01.2024, the parties have appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and deposited Rs.35,000/- each to the aforesaid petitions in the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. He has verified & attested the compromise arrived at between the parties and submitted his report, which has been taken on record.

¶55

As per compromise, the complainant/respondent has entered into a settlement/agreement and received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- each to the petitions vide cheques dt.26.12.2023 & he has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside. Further, the parties do not want to proceed further in the matter.

¶56

The aim & purpose of Section 138 of N.I. Act is not to punish the accused but to ensure that the due amount is duly returned to the complainant. Considering the nature of litigation under Section

¶57

[2024:RJ-JP:618]

¶58

[CRLR-469/2018 & 4 Others]

¶59

(5 of 5)

¶60

138 of N.I. Act, in case the amount is paid and is duly accepted by the complainant, the matter should be compounded and the accused should be acquitted.

¶61

In the present case, the amount has duly been accepted by the complainant and the compromise alongwith cheque is a clear proof thereof.

¶62

The dispute is inter-se in between the parties and does not affect the society at large. The complainant/respondent has now entered into a compromise with the present petitioner.

¶63

Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to acquit the petitioner from the charges and allow the revision petitions filed by the petitioner.

¶64

Consequently, the present revision petitions stand disposed of, in terms of compromise. The impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

¶65

Pending application for suspension of sentence, the stay application & other misc. application, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶66

Let a copy of this order be placed in each petition.

¶67

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J.

¶68

ASHOK/54-58

Satish Katta v. Suneet Karnawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Katta v. Suneet Karnawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimraj Son of Sh. Kesarilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Chand Sharma S/O Shri Madan Lal Sharma B/C Brahman Vs State of Rajasthan

Rinkesh Meena S/O Lakhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Satish Kata Vs Vikram Karnawat

Pinky Shankar Choudhary D/O. Shri Shankar Lalaram Choudhary, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Satish Katta Vs Rajiv Karnawat S/O Shri Ashok Karnawat