Mr Rahamathulla Khan vs Mr Rajashekar
2022 Latest Caselaw 10000 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                           BEFORE

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

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.840 OF 2013
                   c/w.
       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.110/2013


 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.840 OF 2013
BETWEEN:

Mr. Rahamathulla Khan,
S/o. Mustafa Khan,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.101, C Block,
Kalasipalyam New Extension Market
Bangalore - 02.
                                       ..Petitioner
(By Sri. Ravindranath K. Advocate)

AND:

Mr. Rajashekar,
S/o. Shivaramreddy,
Aged about 45 years,
No.82, "C" Block,
Jayachamarajendra
Whole Sale Vegetable Market,
Kalasipalyam,
Bangalore. 02.
                                      .. Respondent
(By Sri. B.N. Umesh, for
Sri. M. Narayana Reddy, Advocate)
                                                Crl.R.P.No.840/2013 c/w.
                                                       Crl.A.No.110/2013
                                  2


                                  ****
      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with the following prayer:

          "Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays that, this
   Hon'ble Court pleased to call for records and to set aside the
   judgment and order of convicted passed by the V Addl Session
   Judge at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.22/2012 who vide his
   order dated 12-08-2013 has dismissed the appeal and
   confirmed the order of sentence and conviction passed by the
   Court of XXII ADDL Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore
   in C.C.No.27519/2008, by its order dated 17-10-201, wherein
   the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine amount of
   Rs.3,70,000/- in default of payment of fine amount to suffer
   simple imprisonment for a period of 1 years, be set aside and to
   acquit her of all the charges in the ends of justice and equity."

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.110/2013

BETWEEN:

Sri. Rajashekar,
S/o. Shivaramareddy,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No;11, Yamari Village,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore - 562125.
                                                       .. Appellant
(By Sri. B.N. Umesh, for
Sri. M. Narayana Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

Sri. Rahamathulla Khan,
S/o. Mustafa Khan,
R/o. No: 5/1, Khazi Street,
Ummer Sherief Road,
Basavanagudi Bangalore.

Office at:
No.101, "C" Block,
Sri. Jayachamarajendra
                                             Crl.R.P.No.840/2013 c/w.
                                                    Crl.A.No.110/2013
                                3


Wholesale Vegetable Yard,
Kalasipalyam,
Bangalore - 2.
                                                    ..Respondent
(By Sri. Ravindranath K. Advocate)

                                   ***
      This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order
of acquittal dated 06-07-2012 passed by the XX A.C.M.M.
Bangalore City in C.C.No.28836/2007, and be pleased to convict
the respondent, in the interest of justice and equity.

      The Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders and
the Criminal Appeal coming on for Hearing, through physical
hearing/video conferencing hearing, this day, the Court made the
following:

                            ORDER

Learned counsels from both side in both the matters

are present. The parties to the litigation in both the

matters, who are common, as identified by their learned

counsels, are also present.

2. In Criminal Revision Petition No.840/2013, learned

counsels from both side have filed a joint application -

I.A.No.1/2022, under Section 147 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, along with the affidavits of the

petitioner (accused in the Trial Court) and the respondent

(complainant in the Trial Court), reporting the settlement Crl.R.P.No.840/2013 c/w.

Crl.A.No.110/2013

between them by way of compromise and seeking acquittal

of the petitioner in Crl.Revision Petition No.840/2013.

3. Learned counsels for the parties also make their

submission on the lines of the compromise petition.

4. 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 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.

5. Admittedly, the cheque amount is for a sum of

`4,00,000/- , as such, the graded cost would be `60,000/-.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

the graded cost payable by the petitioner by virtue of the Crl.R.P.No.840/2013 c/w.

Crl.A.No.110/2013

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H reported in AIR

2010 SUPREME COURT 1907, 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.182131 dated

29-06-2022, issued by the Canara Bank, Vijaya College

Campus, Bangalore, favouring the Registrar General, High

Court of Karnataka, for a sum of `60,000/-. Learned

counsel for the petitioner (accused) and the petitioner who

are present in the Court submit that the said Demand Draft

is towards the 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.

7. The petitioner (accused) in Crl.R.P.No.840/2013

through his counsel hands over a demand draft drawn in

favour of the respondent herein (complainant in the Trial

Court) and bearing No.182132 dated 29-06-2022, drawn on Crl.R.P.No.840/2013 c/w.

Crl.A.No.110/2013

Canara Bank, Vijaya College Campus, Bangalore, for a sum

of `3,50,000/-, which the learned counsel for the

respondent and the respondent (complainant in the Trial

Court) who are physically present, acknowledge the receipt

of the said demand draft, in full and final settlement of the

claim against the present petitioner as mentioned in their

compromise petition filed under Section 147 of the N.I. Act.

Further, the respondent herein (complainant) submits his

'no objection' to allow the criminal revision petition and to

acquit the petitioner (accused) of the alleged offence.

8. In Criminal Appeal No.110/2013, the learned

counsel for the appellant (complainant) has filed a memo,

praying to dismiss the appeal as not pressed. He submits

that in view of the fact that both the parties to the appeal

have settled the matter amicably and the same has been

reported in Criminal Revision Petition No.840/2013, the

present appeal may be dismissed as not pressed.

Crl.R.P.No.840/2013 c/w.

Crl.A.No.110/2013

In view of the memo and the supporting submission

from both side, the criminal appeal filed by complainant is

dismissed as not pressed.

9. Accordingly, taking into consideration the

application and the 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 Section 147 of the N.I. Act.

The matter is settled as per the terms mentioned in the

affidavits and the petitioner (accused) is acquitted of the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Accordingly, Cr.R.P.840/2013 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*