Karnataka High Court
Sandeep M.K. S/O Mrutunjayappa B. ... vs Krishnappa S/O Mallappa Kambli on 13 January, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawazpresided Bymnj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100122/2018
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.100123/2018
In Crl.R.P.No.100122/2018
BETWEEN:
SANDEEP M.K.
S/O MRUTUNJAYAPPA B. KADEPPANAVAR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR,
R/O: H.NO.528,
BEHIND AMRUTHANGAMAYA SCHOOL,
NIJALINGAPPA BADAVANE,
M.B. KADEKOPPA AND SONS,
DAVANAGERE,
TQ and DIST: DAVANAGERE. ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NAGANGOUDA R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KRISHNAPPA S/O MALLAPPA KAMBLI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. DIST. & SESSION JUDGE, HAVERI SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.23/2015 AS WELL AS
JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 07.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL
2
JUDGE AND 1ST ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR, IN C.C.NO.157/2011
ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
In Crl.R.P.No.100123/2018
BETWEEN:
SANDEEP M.K.
S/O MRUTUNJAYAPPA B. KADEPPANAVAR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR,
R/O: H.NO.528,
BEHIND AMRUTHANGAMAYA SCHOOL,
NIJALINGAPPA BADAVANE,
M.B. KADEKOPPA AND SONS,
DAVANAGERE,
TQ and DIST: DAVANAGERE. ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NAGANGOUDA R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KRISHNAPPA S/O MALLAPPA KAMBLI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUISNESS,
R/O: TUMMINAKATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE
II ADDL. DIST. & SESSION JUDGE, HAVARI SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.24/2015 AS WELL AS
JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 07.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE AND 1ST ADDL. JMFC, RANEBENNUR, IN C.C.NO.156/2011
ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Both these Criminal Revision Petitions are
preferred by the accused against the concurrent
findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby he
is convicted and sentenced for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'), in respect of
two cheques issued by him to the
respondent/complainant in discharge of the legally
enforceable debt.
2. The respondent herein filed two
complaints against the accused alleging offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, on the
file of the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and I Addl. JMFC,
Ranebennur, in respect of cheque bearing No.463247
for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and cheque bearing
No.463246 for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs.
3. The trial Court vide separate judgments
convicted and sentenced the accused in both the
cases. The accused was sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.4,50,000/- in default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for two years in
respect of cheque bearing No.463247, in
C.C.No.157/2011 and he was sentenced to pay fine
of Rs.3,50,000/- in default of payment of fine to
undergo simple imprisonment for two years in
respect of cheque bearing No.463246, in
C.C.No.156/2011.
4. The criminal appeals filed by the accused
before the Sessions Court against the impugned
orders have been dismissed. Hence, accused has
preferred these two revision petitions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
parties have filed a compromise petition under
Section 147 of the NI Act, signed by the
petitioner/accused as well as the respondent/
complainant as well as both the learned counsel.
The parties are also present before the Court and
they are identified by their respective counsel.
6. It is submitted that the parties have
settled the matter and the petitioner/ accused has
paid Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and fifty
thousand only) to the respondent/ complainant
towards full and final settlement in respect of both
the cheques and the respondent/ complainant has
accepted the said amount as full and final
settlement.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner submits
that, the petitioner was prosecuting his case
bonafidely and now the parties have amicably
settled the matter. He submits that in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties, the
impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts
below may be set aside. He submits that in view of
the prevailing situation of Covid-19 pandemic, the
petitioner has suffered loss in his business and to
put an end to the litigation, he has settled the
matter.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court finds that the settlement is a
result of positive attitude of the parties and
therefore, to meet the ends of justice, minimal cost
could be imposed. Hence, a cost of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees five thousand only) is levied, which shall be
deposited by the petitioner with the State Legal
Services Authority within four weeks from today.
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Both the Criminal Revision Petitions are
allowed,
ii) The impugned judgment dated 07.02.2015
passed in C.C.No.157/2011 and in
C.C.No.156/2011 on the file of the Court
of Prl. Civil Judge, and I Addl. JMFC,
Ranebennur and the judgment dated
07.05.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.23/2015 and 24/2015 on the file of the
Court of II Addl. District and Session
Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur)
are hereby set aside,
iii) Petitioner is acquitted in both the cases,
iv) His bail bonds stand cancelled,
v) Petitioner shall produce the receipt for
having deposited the amount as ordered.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JUDGE
Jm/paragraphs 1 to 4
Pj/ from paragraph 5 to end
