Karnataka High Court
Sri. Akshay Gangadhar vs M/S Joni Films on 8 January, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:788
CRL.P No. 5980 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5980 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. AKSHAY GANGADHAR
S/O HONNA SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2 VISHAL PALAZZO,
FLAT NO.201 2ND FLOOR,
5TH CROSS,
NEAR SUBRAMANESHWARA TEMPLE,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. JONI FILMS
Digitally signed by A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
BHAVANI BAI G REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS,
Location: High Court
of Karnataka SRI. JONI HARSHA,
AND SMT. LATHA H.
2. MR. JONI HARSHA
S/O. J. NEELAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: PARTNER OF M/S JONI FILMS.
3. SMT. LATHA H
W/O JONI HARSHA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: PARTNER OF M/S JONI FILMS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:788
CRL.P No. 5980 of 2022
ALL THE ABOVE ARE R/AT:
NO.69 (1414), 1ST FLOOR, 23RD CROSS,
12TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK EAST,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU -560 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022
PASSED BY XXIV ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND A.C.M.M
BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.6855/2021 ON THE APPLICATION
FILED UNDER SEC.145(2) OF N.I ACT PRODUCED VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN TO.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-complainant under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order passed
by the Trial Court in C.C.No.6855/2021 dated 22.04.2022 for
having rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 143(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short 'N.I. Act') and to reject the defence of the respondent-
accused.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
parties.
NC: 2024:KHC:788
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has
filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act for having
dishonoured the cheque issued by the respondent-accused for
Rs.86,00,000/. After appearance of the respondent-accused
and recording the plea, the Trial Court passed an order to
deposit 10% of the cheque amount as per Section 143(A) of
the N.I. Act and directed to deposit within 60 days. But the
respondent-accused did not pay the amount. Therefore, the
petitioner moved application for striking out the defence and
not to permit the respondent to cross examine the P.W.1 which
came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner
is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
once the respondent disobeyed the order of the Trial Court not
depositing the interim compensation within 60 days, he has no
right to cross examine the witness. Therefore, he shall not be
permitted to cross examine as P.W.1. But the Trial Court
committed error in rejecting the application. In support of his
case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Ravi vs. Moggannagowda in Crl.P.No.462/2020 dated
NC: 2024:KHC:788
13.10.2020, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
held though the interim compensation can be recoverable as
per Section 421 of Cr.P.C., however, the amount is not paid by
the respondent and he should not be allowed to cross examine
the complainant. However, in the final order, it was revealed
that during the pendency of the said case, the accused paid the
entire amount and permitted the accused to cross examine the
complainant. However, this Court in Crl.P.No.1807/2021 dated
26.07.2021 has taken clear view that the interim compensation
ordered by the Magistrate can be recoverable as provided
under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. as per Sub Section 5 of Section
143(A) of N.I. Act. This Court while relying upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain @
Julfikar Ali vs. The State (Govt. Of NCT) Delhi on 11
January, 2012 reported in 2012(2) SCC 584 has
categorically held that if the accused did not deposit the interim
compensation, it can be recovered under Section 421 of
Cr.P.C., but it cannot be denied for the purpose of cross
examination of the complainant.
5. In the recent case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also
taken similar view in the case of Noor Mohammed vs.
NC: 2024:KHC:788
Khurram Pasha in Criminal Appeal No.--- of 2022
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No.2872/2022), that the right of cross examination cannot be
denied which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India and the amount, if not paid by the accused which was
ordered by the Trial Court, the interim compensation can be
recoverable as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in my
view, the order passed by the Trial Court is based upon some
principle and as per Section 143(A) (5) of the N.I. Act.
6. Such being the case, the petition is devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
The petitioner is at liberty to recover the interim
compensation as per Section 143(A)(5) of N.I. Act read with
Section 421/431 of Cr.P.C. as fine.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GBB
CT:SK
