Mr Venugopal K R vs Mrs Riju H Rai
2022 Latest Caselaw 12351 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                            BEFORE

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

  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.94 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

Mr. Venugopal K.R.
S/o. K. Radhakrishna
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.28, 3rd Cross,
Nanjappa Graden
Kalyannagar Post,
Banaswadi,
Bengaluru - 43.
                                                  .. Petitioner
(By Sri. Dharmapal, Advocate)

AND:

Mrs. Riju H. Rai
D/o. I.J. Nagarath
Aged about 57 years,
R/at No.C-003,
Colorado Apartments,
Hennur Cross Road,
Bengaluru -43.
                                                   ..Respondent
(By Smt. D. Bhuvaneshwari, Advocate)

                                  ***
       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 2-04-2016 in
                                                   Crl.R.P.No.94/2018
                                2


C.C.No.50025/2013 passed by the learned XIV Additional C.M.M.
Bangalore by convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and also set
aside the order of the lower appellate Court, the learned XXVII
Additional City Civil and Judge at (Mayohall Unit, (CCH-29)
passed on 20-12-2017 in Criminal Appeal No.25033/2016 and to
acquit the petitioner or to pass any such other order, direction to
meet the ends of justice.


      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 learned XIV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru

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

C.C.No.50025/2013, 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 Court of

the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Mayohall Crl.R.P.No.94/2018

Unit (CCH-29), Bangalore, (hereinafter for brevity referred

to as "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.

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 N.I.

Act, along with the affidavit of the petitioner. In the joint

application filed by both side, the parties have reported that

they have settled the matter amicably and have

compromised the matter. The respondent has submitted

her 'no objection' in allowing the revision petition by setting

aside the impugned judgments and acquitting the petitioner

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

Crl.R.P.No.94/2018

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 affidavit is that, the parties have settled the

matter amicably, wherein the petitioner has stated that he

has paid a total sum of `2,75,000/- to the respondent, as

full and final settlement of the claim in this petition, in the

form of a Demand Draft dated 02-08-2022 bearing

No.070383 drawn in favour of the respondent, on AXIS

Bank Limited, Kalyan Nagar Branch, Bangalore, for a sum of

`1,00,000/- and that he has no objection for the respondent

to withdraw the amount of `1,75,000/- deposited by him in

C.C.No.50025/2013 in the Trial Court.

The respondent, who is physically present and

identified by the learned counsel for the respondent

acknowledges the receipt of the said Demand Draft for a

sum of `1,00,000/- by her from the petitioner.

The petitioner through his counsel submits that he

would extend all assistance and execute the necessary Crl.R.P.No.94/2018

papers, application, letter, etc. to enable the present

respondent to withdraw the amount of `1,75,000/- said to

have been deposited by him in the Trial Court, without

causing any inconvenience to the respondent. The

respondent submits that she has compromised the matter

for a sum of `2,75,000/- as full and final settlement of her

claim which is the subject matter of the petition.

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.

7. Section 147 of the N.I. Act has made every

offence punishable under the N.I. Act as compoundable. As Crl.R.P.No.94/2018

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 cheque amount

is for a sum of `2,50,000/-, as such, the graded cost would

be `37,500/-.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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

`37,500/- would be deposited by the petitioner.

Crl.R.P.No.94/2018

Accordingly, along with the application, the petitioner has

also filed a Demand Draft bearing No.070672 dated

12-10-2022, drawn on AXIS Bank Ltd., Kalyan Nagar,

Bangalore [KT], in favour of KSLSA, for a sum of `37,500/-

towards 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

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 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

joint application filed by both side and the petitioner herein

who was accused in the Trial Court in C.C.No.50025/2013

is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of Crl.R.P.No.94/2018

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*