K.S.Umashree vs M.G.Suresh
2022 Latest Caselaw 12635 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                            BEFORE

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

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.279 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

K.S. Umashree,
W/o. D. Ravikumar,
Aged about 37 years
Residing at No.A-1406,
ETA Star Garden,
Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 560 023.
                                                      .. Petitioner
(By Sri. Goreppa S., for Sri. Rajaram T., Advocate)

AND:

M.G. Suresh,
S/o. M. Gangaiah,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.48,
Revanna Siddeshwara
Nilaya, 1st Main,
Hosahalli, Vijayanagara,
Bangalore -560 040.
                                                      ..Respondent
(By Sri. Nagaraj M., Advocate)

                                  ***
       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with the
following prayer:
                                                     Crl.R.P.No.279/2018
                                  2



         "Wherefore the Appellant herein prays that this Hon'ble
   court may be pleased to call for the records and set aside order
   of the conviction passed by the XIII ACCM Court, Bangalore in
   C.C.No.14347/2016 the judgment passed on 10.5.2017 and
   consequently, set-aside the Cri.Appeal No.841/2017 order
   dated 30.1.2018 passed by the court of the LVIII Addl. City
   Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 59) Bangalore City, by allowing
   the Criminal Revision Petition as prayed for in the interest of
   justice and equity."


     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 XIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as "the Trial Court") in C.C.No.14347/2016,

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 LVIII Crl.R.P.No.279/2018

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59),

Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "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/accused 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.3/2022, 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 application filed by both side, the parties have

reported that, they have settled the matter amicably and

have compromised the matter. The learned counsel

for the respondent/complainant orally submitted his 'no

objection' in allowing the revision petition by

setting aside the impugned judgments Crl.R.P.No.279/2018

and acquitting the petitioner/accused of the offence

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

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 affidavits filed by both parties is that, the parties

have settled the matter amicably, stating that, the

petitioner herein (accused) has offered to pay in total a sum

of `6,50,000/- to the respondent/complainant, as full and

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

sum of `6,50,000/-, a total sum of `2,00,000/- stated to

have been deposited by the petitioner herein in the Courts

during the pendency of the matter, is agreed to be

released in favour of the respondent/complainant herein.

Out of the balance sum of `4,50,000/-, a sum of

`3,00,000/- is agreed to be payable by way of a Demand

Draft or fund transfer to the Bank account of the

respondent/complainant by the petitioner/accused on or Crl.R.P.No.279/2018

before 19-11-2022. The remaining sum of `1,50,000/- is

also agreed to be payable by the petitioner (accused) to the

respondent (complainant) by way of a Demand Draft or

fund transfer to the Bank account of the respondent

(complainant) on or before 10-12-2022. It is further

agreed that in case of default of payment of the balance

amount by the petitioner/accused, she (revision petitioner)

has undertaken to pay the entire fine amount of a sum of

`9,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant as imposed by

the Trial Court.

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, Crl.R.P.No.279/2018

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

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 `7,00,000/-, as such, the graded

cost would be `1,05,000/-.

Crl.R.P.No.279/2018

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 `1,05,000/- would be deposited by the

petitioner. Accordingly, along with the application, the

petitioner has also filed a Bankers Cheque bearing

No.965313 dated 27-10-2022, drawn on the State Bank of

India, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, in favour of "Member

Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority", for a

sum of `1,05,000/- towards graded cost as per the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S.

Prabhu's case (supra). The said Bankers cheque is

accepted towards the graded cost 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 sum of `90,000/- said to have been

deposited by the present petitioner/accused in the Court of Crl.R.P.No.279/2018

the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Bengaluru in C.C.No.14347/2016 and another sum of

`1,10,000/- said to have been deposited by the present

petitioner/accused in the registry of this Court be released

in favour of the respondent/complainant, by the concerned

Trial Court and also by the registry of this Court, without

any further orders from this Court in this regard, however,

after his due identification and in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, taking into consideration the joint

application- I.A.No.3/2022 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.3/2022 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 and also the independent affidavits filed by

both side and the petitioner herein who was accused in the

Trial Court in C.C.No.14347/2016 is acquitted of the

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

Crl.R.P.No.279/2018

Accordingly, the present revision petition stands disposed

of.

In the light of the above settlement, as submitted by

the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent

(complainant), I.A.No.2/2022 for release of the amount,

stands dismissed as having become infructuous.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the

Trial Court and also to the Sessions Judge's Court,

immediately.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BMV*