Karnataka High Court

S A Madappa vs M B Chengappa on 30 May, 2022

Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                        BEFORE

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

       CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.846 OF 2013

BETWEEN

S.A.MADAPPA
SON OF S.C.ANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDENT OF VIRAJPET TOWN
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 235.              .. PETITIONER
     (BY HARISH M.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M.B.CHENGAPPA
SON OF MANDEPANDA BELLIAPPA
AGED MAJOR
RESIDENT OF CHEMBEBELLUR VILLAGE
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 235.           .. RESPONDENT
     (BY SRI.T.A.KURUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)

                             ****
     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 AND 401 CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.10.13 PASSED
BY THE P.O. II ADDITIONAL D.J. COURT MADIKERI SITTING AT
VIRAJPET IN CRL.A.NO.59/12 AND ORDER DATED:29.9.2012
PASSED    BY    THE   C.J. AND    J.M.F.C., VIRAJPET  IN
C.C.NO.1529/2007.
                                               Crl.R.P.No.846/2013
                                 2


     THIS 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

who was convicted by the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC,

Virajpet, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court")

in C.C.No.1529/2007 for the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as the "N.I. Act") and was sentenced to pay a

fine of `25,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of six months.

2. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred

an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.59/2012 in the Court of the II

Additional District and Sessions Court, Kodagu, Madikeri, sitting

at Virajpet Judge, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the

"Sessions Judge's Court"), which by its impugned judgment

dated 08.10.2013 dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment

of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court.

3. As observed above, after contest, the Trial Court held

the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Crl.R.P.No.846/2013

the N.I. Act and sentenced him accordingly. Challenging the said

judgment, a criminal appeal in Criminal Appeal No.59/2012 was

filed by the accused, which also came to be dismissed, while

confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence

passed by the Trial Court.

4. When this matter is listed for Orders today, learned

counsel from both side along with the petitioner/accused and the

respondent/complainant as identified by them are physically

present in the Court and they file a joint application under

Section 147 of the N.I. Act, seeking permission to compound the

offence and to set aside the impugned judgments and acquit the

accused of the alleged offence.

5. It is stated in the application that at the intervention

of the elders and well-wishers, the petitioner and respondent

have agreed for settlement and they have also mentioned the

terms of the settlement. The said joint application reads as

under:

"That the cheque amount involved in the aforesaid matter is only `20,000/- and the fine amount is of `5,000/-. The liability of the petitioner is Crl.R.P.No.846/2013

to pay `25,000/- before the Trial Court. As such the petitioner has deposited a sum of `15,000/- before the Trial Court and as per this Hon'ble Court's order while suspending the sentence the petitioner has deposited a sum of `20,000/- before this Hon'ble Court. As such total a sum of `35,000/- deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner has no objection to withdraw a sum of `23,000/- including the fine amount of `2,000/- which is deposited before the Trial Court as well as before this Hon'ble Court. The excess amount of `10,000/- deposited by the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw by the petitioner and may be acquitted for the offence alleged against the petitioner. In terms of the same the matter may be disposed of by compounding the offence, in the interest of justice and equity."

6. Learned counsel from both side make their supporting

submission and pray for allowing the application under

consideration as prayed.

7. At the specific enquiry made by the Court of the

respective parties, both of them make their supporting

submission on the lines of the joint application. From their

enquiry, it is convinced to the Court that, both the parties

without any coercion, fraud or undue influence have voluntarily, Crl.R.P.No.846/2013

willingly and out of their free consent have agreed to compound

the offence and settle the matter amicably. Therefore, this Court

is of the view that the parties can be permitted to compound the

offence, however, subject to the payment of the graded cost by

the petitioner/accused.

8. The Trial Court has ordered for payment for a total fine

amount of `25,000/- by the accused in which `23,000/- was

ordered to be payable as compensation to the complainant under

Section 357(1)(b) of N.I. Act and `2,000/- was ordered to be

payable to the State towards prosecution expenses. The said

order was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal

No.59/2012.

9. Now, through an application under consideration,

both the parties have settled the matter and the accused has

agreed to pay a total sum of `25,000/- inclusive of `2,000/-

payable to the State towards prosecution expenses and

`23,000/- out of the said amount of `25,000/- which is payable

to the complainant as compensation amount.

Crl.R.P.No.846/2013

10. 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 cost. Accordingly, taking into consideration the joint

application for compounding, 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 proceed to pass the

following:-

Crl.R.P.No.846/2013

ORDER

The joint application filed by both side under

Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,

is allowed;

The accused in total is said to have deposited a

sum of `15,000/- and `20,000/-, thus, a total sum of

`35,000/- in which a sum of `23,000/- is payable to

the complainant as compensation and `2,000/-

towards prosecution expenses and `3,000/- towards

graded cost. After deducting the said amount; the

remaining amount to be refunded to the

petitioner/accused without any further orders by this

Court and in accordance with law. The amount

payable to the complainant be released to the

complainant after due identification and in accordance

with law, without any further orders of this Court.

Subject to the payment of graded cost, the

judgment of conviction and order passed by the

learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet, in

C.C.No.1529/2007 dated 29.09.2012 is set aside and