Sri C P Peeraiah @ Ravi vs Smt Leelavathi Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 12977 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                            BEFORE

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

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.208 OF 2019
BETWEEN:

Sri.C.P. Peeraiah @ Ravi,
S/o. Sri. Madaraiah,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at. No.7/4, 1st Cross,
Papanna Block,
Ganganagar,
Bengaluru - 560 032.

                                                 .. Petitioner
(By Sri.V.R. Balaraj, Advocate)

AND:

Smt. Leelavathi Bai,
S/o. Sri. Nagaraj Prasad,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.103/1, 3rd 'A' Cross,
Kempanna Layout,
Cholanayakanahalli,
Bengaluru -560 032.
                                                  ..Respondent
(By Smt. Archana K.M., Amicus Curiae)

                                 ***
      This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call
for the records on the file of learned XV ACMM, Bengaluru in
C.C.No.4346/2016 dated 06.04.2017 and the learned LXVII Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in criminal appeal
                                                      Crl.R.P.No.208/2019
                                  2


No.882/2017 dated 20.11.2018, further be pleased to set aside
the impugned judgment dated 06.04.2017 passed by the learned
XV ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.4346/2014 produced at
Annexure-A and the judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by the
learned LXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in
Crl.Appeal No.882/2017 produced at Annexure-B, and pass such
other appropriate order or judgment as deemed fit to pass under
the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice
and equity.

      The Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission
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 learned XV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as "the Trial Court") in

C.C.No.4346/2016, holding the accused as 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 Court of

the learned LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru City (CCH. No.68), (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as "the Sessions Judge's Court") in the appeal Crl.R.P.No.208/2019

filed by him. Challenging the impugned judgments of

conviction and order on sentence passed by both the

Courts, the petitioner/accused has filed the present revision

petition.

2. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the

respondent (complainant) failed to appear before this Court

on several dates of hearing, this Court by its reasoned order

dated 02-11-2022, appointed learned counsel -

Smt. K.M. Archana, as the Amicus Curiae for the respondent

(complainant), to defend her in this case.

3. Though this petition has been posted for

Admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Amicus Curiae for the respondent along with their

respective clients, as identified by them, are physically

present in the Court.

Crl.R.P.No.208/2019

5. Learned counsels from both side have filed a joint

petition - I.A.No.1/2022, under Section 147 of the N.I. Act,

and also the independent affidavits of the revision

petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant. In the

joint petition filed by both side, the parties have reported

that, they have settled the matter amicably and have

compromised the matter. The learned Amicus Curiae

for the respondent/complainant orally submitted her 'no

objection' for allowing the revision petition by

setting aside the impugned judgments

and acquitting the petitioner/accused of the offence

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

6. Learned counsels for the parties also make their

submission on the lines of the compromise petition.

7. The sum and substance of the joint petition as well

as the affidavits filed by both parties is that, the parties

have settled the matter amicably, wherein the petitioner

herein (accused) has agreed to pay in total, a sum of

`3,10,000/- to the respondent/complainant, as full and Crl.R.P.No.208/2019

final settlement of the claim in this petition. Out of the said

sum of `3,10,000/-, a sum of `36,000/- through Q

No.6307/2017 dated 29-07-2017 and a sum of `1,44,000/-

through Q No.21709/2018 (total `1,80,000/-) said to have

been deposited by the petitioner herein in the Trial Court in

C.C.No.4346/2016 during the pendency of the matter, is

agreed to be released in favour of the respondent/

complainant herein. Towards the balance sum of

`1,30,000/- [i.e. `3,10,000/- (-) `1,80,000/-], the

petitioner (accused) is said to have paid the said sum to

the respondent (complainant) by way of a Demand Draft

dated 14-11-2022 bearing No.180852, for a sum of

`1,30,000/-, drawn on the Canara Bank, Hebbal Branch,

Bengaluru. The respondent (complainant), who is

physically present in the Court has duly acknowledged the

receipt of the said demand draft.

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 Crl.R.P.No.208/2019

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 petition, 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.

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 Crl.R.P.No.208/2019

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 for a sum of `3,50,000/-, as such, the graded

cost would be `52,500/-.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

(accused) submits that, the graded cost payable by the

petitioner by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), which comes

to a total sum of `52,500/- would be deposited by the

petitioner. Accordingly, along with a memo, the petitioner

has also filed a Demand Draft bearing No.180853 dated

14-11-2022, drawn on the Canara Bank, IAF Hebbal,

Bangalore, in favour of the "Member Secretary, Karnataka

State Legal Services Authority", for a sum of `52,500/-

towards the graded cost as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra). The

said Demand Draft is accepted towards the graded cost Crl.R.P.No.208/2019

payable by the petitioner/accused. Registry to do the

needful in the matter.

10. In the light of the above terms entered into

between the parties, a total sum of `1,80,000/- (`36,000/-

+`1,44,000/-) said to have been deposited by the present

petitioner/accused in the Court of the XV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in

C.C.No.4346/2016 be released in favour of the

respondent/complainant, by the concerned Trial Court,

without any further orders from this Court in this regard,

however, after her due identification and in accordance with

law.

11. Accordingly, taking into consideration the joint

petition- I.A.No.1/2022 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 Crl.R.P.No.208/2019

joint petition and also the independent affidavits filed by

both side and the petitioner herein who was accused in the

Trial Court in C.C.No.4346/2016 is acquitted of the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly,

the present revision petition stands disposed of.

The Court, while acknowledging the services rendered

by the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent

(complainant) - Smt.K.M. Archana, recommends an

honorarium of a sum of not less than `3,000/- payable to

her by the Registry.

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*