Sri Shivalingaiah vs M A Raju
2021 Latest Caselaw 6128 Kant

                             1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.254 OF 2019

BETWEEN

Sri Shivalingaiah,
S/o Lingaiah,
Aged about 74 years,
Occ: Retired Teacher,
R/at 4th Cross, Sri M.V.Nagar,
Maddur Town, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District-571428.
                                                ...Petitioner
(By Sri C. Basavaiah, Advocate)

AND

M.A.Raju,
S/o Annaiah,
Aged about 57 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/at St. Ance Convent,
Maruthi Nilaya, H.K.Nagar,
Maddur Taluk, Mandya District-571428.
                                              ...Respondent
(By Sri H.S.Sheshadri, Advocate)

      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397 read with 401 Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order of
conviction order passed by Fast Court III at Mandya in
Crl.A.No.44/2004 vide judgment dated 26.06.2007 and
further be pleased to set aside the judgment passed by the
                               2


Principal Civil Judge Junior Division and JMFC at Maddur in
C.C.No.873/2002 vide judgment dated 26.05.2004
dismissing the appeal and etc.,

       This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for orders
this day, the court made the following:

                         ORDER

This revision petition is filed challenging the

judgment dated 26.6.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal

44/2004, confirming the judgment of the trial court

which convicted the petitioner for offence under

section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months

with fine of Rs.2,20,000/-.

2. Sri H.S.Sheshadri, learned advocate, has filed

vakalath for the respondent. Sri C.Basavaiah and Sri

H.S.Sheshadri are present and submit that the matter

has been settled between the parties. An application

under section 320 Cr.P.C is filed along with a joint

memo of the petitioner and the respondent. It is

stated in the joint memo that the matter has been

settled out of court and that the respondent has

received the entire amount due to him by the

petitioner.

3. In view of this settlement, the respondent is

permitted to compound the offence and consequent to

this compounding the judgment passed by the trial

court in C.C.873/2002 and the Sessions Court in

Criminal Appeal 44/2004 are set aside. The petitioner

is acquitted of the offence under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

Since it is submitted that NBW is ordered against

the petitioner, in view of his acquittal, NBW stands

recalled.

sd/-

JUDGE

ckl