Karnataka High Court
Sri Pramod Kumar K vs Sri Suraj M on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.518 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pramod Kumar K.
(Correct name Pramod K.)
S/o. late Sri. Kantha Raj N.
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.146,
Kote Anjaneya Temple Street,
K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru - 560 036.
.. Petitioner
(By Sri. Zahid Ali, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. Suraj M.
S/o. N.S. Murugesh,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.502,
Gaganmurthy Apartments,
Patel Muniyappa Layout,
R.T. Nagar Post,
Hebbal,
Bengaluru - 560032.
..Respondent
(By Sri. S. Anil Kumar., Advocate)
***
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
praying to call for records and to set aside the judgment dated
Crl.R.P.No.518/2018
2
16-04-2018 in Criminal Appeal No.761/2017 passed by the LIX
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, by
dismissing the Criminal Appeal and the confirming the judgment
of conviction and sentence dated 27-04-2017 in
C.C.No.11078/2013 passed by the XVIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, by convicted him for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, by sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.6,10,000/-
and in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months
and to allow the petition and to acquit the petitioner of the
offence with which he has been convicted and sentenced, in the
above case, in the interest of justice and equity.
The Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders
through physical hearing/video conferencing hearing, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed by the
accused, challenging the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence passed by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.11078/2013, holding the accused guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as
the "N.I. Act"), which was further confirmed by the
Sessions Judge's Court in the appeal filed by him.
Challenging the impugned judgments of conviction and
order on sentence passed by both the Courts, the petitioner
has filed the present revision petition.
Crl.R.P.No.518/2018
2. Learned counsels from both side along with their
respective clients, as identified by their learned counsels,
are physically present in the Court.
3. Learned counsels from both side have filed a joint
application - I.A.No.1/2022, under Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity
referred to as "the N.I. Act"), along with the independent
affidavits of the petitioner (accused in the Trial Court) and
the respondent (complainant in the Trial Court), reporting
the settlement between them by way of compromise and
seeking acquittal of the petitioner herein (accused) in C.C.
No.11078/2013.
4. Learned counsels for the parties also make their
submission on the lines of the compromise petition.
5. The sum and substance of the joint application as
well as the sworn affidavits of both parties is that, the
parties have settled the matter amicably, stating that the
petitioner (accused) has paid a total sum of `4,40,000/- to
Crl.R.P.No.518/2018
the respondent as a full and final settlement in the matter,
in which, a sum of `3,05,000/- which is said to have been
deposited in this Court during the pendency of the matter,
is agreed to be released in favour of the respondent herein
and the balance amount of `1,35,000/- is said to have been
paid to the respondent in the form of Demand Draft
bearing No.737328 dated 01-07-2022 drawn on Kotak
Mahindra Bank, High Court Branch, Bangalore.
6. The enquiry made with the parties who are
physically present convinces the Court that both the parties
out of their free consent and volition and in their best
interest have settled the matter amicably which is further
corroborated by the submissions made by their learned
counsels. As such, I am of the view that on the terms of
the said joint application, the parties be permitted to
compound the offence under Section 147 of the N.I. Act,
however, subject to the payment of the graded cost by the
petitioner/accused.
Crl.R.P.No.518/2018
7. Section 147 of the N.I. Act has made every
offence punishable under the N.I. Act as compoundable. As
such, there is no bar for the parties in the proceeding to
compound the offence. However, at the same time, the
guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S.
Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME
COURT 1907 regarding imposing graded cost on litigant also
to be borne in mind. According to the said Judgment in
Damodar S. Prabhu's Case (supra), if the application for
compounding is made before the Sessions Court or High
Court in revision or appeal, such compounding is permitted
to be allowed on the common condition that the accused
pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of graded cost.
8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the two cheques'
amount is for a sum of `4,00,000/-, as such, the graded
cost would be `60,000/-.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
the graded cost payable by the petitioner by virtue of the
Crl.R.P.No.518/2018
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar
S. Prabhu's case (supra), which comes to a total sum of
`60,000/- would be deposited by the petitioner.
Accordingly, along with the application, the petitioner has
also filed a demand draft bearing No.033948 dated
01-07-2022, drawn on Nyayamitra Sahakari Bank Niyamita,
High Court Building Branch, Bangalore, favouring the
Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru,
for a sum of `60,000/- towards graded cost. A statement to
that effect is also made by the petitioner in his affidavit.
Hence, the said demand draft is accepted towards the
graded cost payable by the petitioner. Registry to do the
needful in the matter.
10. Accordingly, taking into consideration the joint
application- I.A.No.1/2022 and the independent affidavits
filed by both side, the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra) and the
circumstance of the case on hand, I.A.No.1/2022 is allowed.
The parties are permitted to compound the offence under
Crl.R.P.No.518/2018
Section 147 of the N.I. Act. The matter is settled as per
the terms mentioned in the joint application and the
affidavits filed by both side and the petitioner herein who
was accused in the Court of the XVIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.11078/2013
is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act. Accordingly, the present revision petition
stands disposed of.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the
Trial Court and also to the Sessions Judge's Court along
with their respective records, immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
