Karnataka High Court
Smt Rathna vs M/S Saphalya Credit Co-Op Society Ltd on 3 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13671
CRL.RP No. 556 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 556 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RATHNA
W/O RAMKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
C/O M.S.SONU MENSWEAR,
NO.112, 17TH MAIN, 40 FEET ROAD,
MUNESHWARA BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. SAPHALYA CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.1152, 1ST FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD,
GIRINAGARA 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 085
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
Location: HIGH AND RECOVERY OFFICER,
COURT OF SRI D.R.RAVINDRA.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 26.03.2016 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL.
JUDGE AND XXXII ADDL.C.M.M., COURT FOR SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.9374/2013 MODIFIED BY THE LXV
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN
CRL.A.NO.774/2016 BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
10.02.2017 AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13671
CRL.RP No. 556 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed against the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.9374/2013,
wherein the accused was directed to pay an amount of
Rs.69,412/-, out of which a sum of Rs.20,000/- was directed to
be paid to the complainant towards the compensation and the
same is rectified by the First Appellate Court in
Crl.A.No.774/2016 on re-appreciation of material on record
directing the accused to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the
complainant and an amount of Rs.9,412/- shall be remitted to
the State. Hence, challenging the same, this revision petition is
filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act
cannot be invoked, since it has emerged during the course of
the evidence that Cheque was collected, when the complainant
went near the house of the accused in connection with earlier
NC: 2024:KHC:13671
compromise entered in C.C.No.15349/2007 which has ended in
compromise and when the accused failed to pay the aforesaid
agreed amount, the complainant visited the house of accused
for recovery of amount. At that juncture, subject matter of
Cheque was collected. Hence, the same is not towards any
legally enforceable debt. Both the Courts have not properly
appreciated the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and documents
Exs.D1 to D8 produced by the petitioner and arrived at a wrong
conclusion. Hence, it requires interference.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
would submit that husband availed loan from the complainant-
Credit Co-operative Society and this petitioner is the guarantor
to the said loan transaction. It is also the case of the
complainant before the Trial Court that earlier case filed against
her husband was compromised in C.C.No.15349/2007 and with
regard to the said liability, Cheque was issued and the same
was dishonored with an endorsement 'account closed'. Hence,
proceedings has been initiated and both the Courts have
applied their judicious mind and have arrived at the conclusion
that Cheque is given towards liability. Hence, no grounds are
made to interfere.
NC: 2024:KHC:13671
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the
petitioner also not disputes the fact that earlier criminal case
was registered against the husband and a compromise was
entered and he agreed to pay the amount, but did not repay
the amount and when the accused failed to comply the order
passed in C.C.No.15349/2007 at Ex.P1, the present petitioner
has given the subject matter of Cheque and all these aspects
have been taken note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court and the same has been discussed in Para No.17 and
comes to the conclusion that though accused would contend
that Cheque at Ex.P2 was in the custody of the complainant
and the same has been misused by the complainant, at the
same time, she failed to place any iota of convincing and
cogent evidence, except her self-testimony and discussed in
detail with regard to the documents which have been marked
on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any grounds to
exercise the revisional powers, since both the Courts taken
note of earlier transaction and also the compromise entered
into between the parties in the earlier criminal proceedings and
issuance of Ex.P2-Cheque for Rs.49,412/- towards the agreed
NC: 2024:KHC:13671
liability. When such being the case, when already there was
compromise in C.C.No.15349/2007 and towards the said
liability, Ex.P2-Cheque was given, no grounds are made out to
interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court by exercising the revisional powers.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
