Sri.Hari Nagendra vs Sri.T. Venkatappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 10942 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1450/2021

BETWEEN:

SRI.HARI NAGENDRA,
S/O CHINNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #7, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST MAIN, SUBRAMANYAPURA TEMPLE ROAD,
KUMARAPARK WEST,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
                                               ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL
 AND ASWATHANARAYANA L , ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD ASSOCIATES)

AND:

SRI.T.VENKATAPPA,
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.60,1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR,
NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE,
RAMANAGARA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
                                              ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ABHISHEK K, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 17.06.2019 PASSED IN C.C.NO.236/2016 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., RAMANAGARA AND
JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2021 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.14/2019 ON
THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
                                               Crl.R.P.No.1450/2021
                              2


RAMANAGARA BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP AND CONSEQUENTLY
RECORD FINDING OF ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED.

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS 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 Court of the Additional Civil

Judge and J.M.F.C., Ramanagara (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as "the Trial Court") in C.C.No.236/2016,

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 her. Challenging the impugned judgments

of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the

Courts, the petitioner has filed the present revision

petition.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the respondent along with their Crl.R.P.No.1450/2021

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

N.I.Act, along with the affidavit of the petitioner (accused

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.236/2016.

4. Learned counsels for the parties made their

submission on the lines of the joint application and the

affidavit.

5. The sum and substance of the joint application is

that, the parties have agreed to settle the matter subject

to the petitioner paying in total a sum of `21,00,000/- to

the respondent. In the said amount, a sum of

`10,30,000/- is said to be deposited during the pendency

of the matter between the parties. The petitioner has no

objection for releasing the said amount of `10,30,000/- in

favour of the respondent (complainant). The respondent Crl.R.P.No.1450/2021

has also acknowledged the receipt of another sum of

`2,00,000/- + `2,00,000/- = totally a sum of `4,00,000/-

in cash from the petitioner. The balance amount of

`6,70,000/- is now paid by the petitioner to the

respondent in the form of Demand Draft bearing

No.509266 drawn on ICICI Bank, M.G.Road Branch,

Bangalore, in favour of the respondent. The

respondent acknowledges receipt of the same and submits

that he has received the full and final satisfaction of the

compromised amount from the petitioner and that he has

no objection to acquit the respondent/accused of the

alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the

N.I.Act.

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 and also affidavit, the Crl.R.P.No.1450/2021

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.

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 Vs. 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 cheque

amount is Rs.25,50,000/-.

Crl.R.P.No.1450/2021

9. Considering the statements made in the joint

application and also the reasons shown by the petitioner, I

am of the view that though as per Damodar's case

(supra), the graded cost upon the cheque amount which is

a sum of `25,50,000/- would be `3,82,500/-.

10. The said graded cost of `3,82,500/- is now

tendered by the petitioner (accused) through a Demand

Draft bearing No.515633 dated 14-07-2022, for a sum of

`3,82,500/-, drawn in favour of the Registrar General, the

High Court of Karnataka, on ICICI Bank, Kumara Park,

Bangalore.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits

that it was the Accounts-I Section of this Registry that

advised him to secure the Demand Draft in favour of the

Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, though the

graded cost is payable to the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority. In view of the same, the Registry to

do the needful in the matter and transfer the said amount Crl.R.P.No.1450/2021

in favour of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority,

without delay.

12. Accordingly, taking into consideration the joint

application filed by both side and also the affidavit of the

petitioner, the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), observations made

in Prateek Jain's case (supra) and also the special

circumstance of the case on hand, I.A.No.1/2022 is

allowed. The parties are permitted to compound the

offence under Section 147 of the N.I. Act. The matter is

settled between the parties as per the terms mentioned in

the joint application and the affidavit filed and the

petitioner herein, who was accused in the Court of the

Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ramanagara in

C.C.No.236/2016, is acquitted of the offence punishable

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Accordingly, the present revision petition stands

disposed of.

Crl.R.P.No.1450/2021

The amount of `10,30,000/- said to have been

deposited by the present petitioner/accused in the Trial

Court in C.C.No.236/2016, is ordered to be released in

favour of the respondent (complainant in the Trial Court),

without any further orders by this Court, however, after his

due identification and in accordance with law.

Registry to take on record the graded cost of

`3,82,500/- paid through Demand Draft, as observed

above.

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

KNM/-