Karnataka High Court

Smt. Deepa vs Smt. Anitha on 27 June, 2025

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:22777
                                                        CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024


                      HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                         CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1134 OF 2024
                      BETWEEN:

                         SMT. DEEPA
                         W/O VENKATESH
                         AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
                         R/AT No.303, 9TH CROSS
                         LAKSMIUPRA, K G NAGAR
                         BENGALURU - 560 019.
                         PH.No.9739518553.
                                                                ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SMT. BRINDA KALIDINDI, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA          SMT. ANITHA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH           W/O RAM MURTHY
COURT OF                 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
KARNATAKA
                         RESIDING 288, 7TH CROSS
                         VASANTHAMMA BULIDING
                         SRIKRISHNADEVARAYA ROAD
                         LASKHMIPURAM
                         BENGALURU - 560 019.
                                                                ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI AJAY R, ADVOCATE)

                           THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
                      SECTION 401 Cr.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO
                      SET ASIDE THE TWO IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS VIZ., CRL.
                      APPEAL No.1084/2021 DATED 01.07.2024 PASSED BY THE
                      HON'BLE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-
                      66) AT BENGALURU AND C.C.No.961/2019 DATED 23.10.2019
                               -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:22777
                                    CRL.RP No. 1134 of 2024


HC-KAR




ON THE FILE OF XVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AND REMAND BACK THE MATTER
TO THE LOWER COURT AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO LEAD
HER DEFENCE EVIDENCE AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND
ETC.,

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


                      ORAL ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the

judgment dated 01.07.2024 passed in Crl.A.No.1084/2021

by the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru, wherein the conviction of the petitioner dated

23.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.961/2019 by the XVI

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I Act"

for brevity) has been confirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.

3. The respondent -complainant has initiated

proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable

NC: 2025:KHC:22777

HC-KAR

under Court was that the petitioner -accused has availed

hand loan for Rs.15,00,000/- (rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)

during April 2017 and promised to repay the same within

06 months. The petitioner -accused in order repay the

same has issued two cheques one for Rs.5,00,000/-

(rupees Five Lakhs only) bearing No.870871 and another

cheque bearing No.894999 for a sum Rs.10,00,000/-

(rupees Ten Lakhs only). The respondent -complainant

has presented said cheques for encashment and they are

dishonoured with endorsement "payment stopped by the

drawer" dated 09.05.2018. The respondent got issued

legal notice dated 07.06.2018 to the accused and same

has been served on the accused on 08.06.2018. The

accused neither replied to the legal notice nor paid

cheques amount. Therefore, the respondent -complainant

has initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act in two cases.

Out of those two cases this case pertains to cheque for

Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees Five Lakhs only).

NC: 2025:KHC:22777

HC-KAR

4. The complainant has been examined as P.W.1

and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P6. The petitioner

-accused took several adjournments for cross

examination. On 19.10.2019, a joint memo has been filed

and it has been signed by the petitioner -accused,

respondent -complainant and their respective counsels.

Under said joint memo, the petitioner -accused has

agreed for settlement of the matter and making payment

of Rs.3,75,000/-(rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five

Thousand only) within 06 months i.e., before April -2020.

5. Based on the said joint memo, the trial Court

has passed the judgment convicting the petitioner for

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

sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,75,000/- and said amount of

fine has to be paid as compensation to the respondent -

complainant and it is to be paid before April -2020. The

petitioner -accused instead of paying the said amount has

challenged the said judgment in appeal before the

Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after hearing parties

NC: 2025:KHC:22777

HC-KAR

has passed the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal

on merits.

6. In the appeal the petitioner has contended that

the said settlement by way joint memo is made by

coercion and prayed for remand of the matter. While

considering the said aspect, the Appellate Court has given

finding as under

"17. On perusal of the records and the joint memo filed by both the complainant and accused and the order sheet it is noticed that there is no coercion and undue influence as alleged by the appellant as the appellant / accused having voluntarily agreed, have filed the joint memo before the trial court as the case was posted for cross examination of PW1. The trial court while taking the joint memo on record as clearly mentioned that the terms and conditions enumerated in the joint memo are read over and explained to the complainant and accused in the open court to them and both the parties agreed and accepted the same. As per the settlement both the parties are amicably settled the matter for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- in full and final within six months i.e., before April 2020. The accused and accused counsel, the complainant and

NC: 2025:KHC:22777

HC-KAR

complainant's counsel present and they have endorsed the signature on the order sheet and so also on the joint memo filed before the trial court. The accused having voluntarily agreed to pay the amount to the complainant by filing the joint memo and agreed for the installments. Now the accused cannot plead that he has executed the joint memo in undue influence and coercion. The amount due under cheque is Rs.5,00,000/- and the parties have agreed for settlement of the dispute under the cheque is for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and both the complainant and accused having voluntarily agreed to settle the dispute for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and having filed the joint memo before the trial court. Now the appellant having not complied with the terms of the joint memo has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment passed by the trial court. The trial court on the admissions made by the appellant by filing the joint memo before the trial court, has convicted the accused for the amount agreed by the appellant in the joint memo for a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-. The appellant / accused having voluntarily admitted that he is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- out of Rs.5,00,000/-, now cannot contended that she has signed the joint memo under coercion and undue influence and she is not liable to pay amount to the complainant. The accused having voluntarily admitted and filed joint

NC: 2025:KHC:22777

HC-KAR

memo before the trial court and she having not alleged any undue influence or coercion before the trial court while filing the joint memo, now she cannot contend the same and prefer the appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court. The trial Court accepting the joint memo filed by the parties having taken the same on record, the trial Court has passed the judgment u/s.264 of Cr.P.C. The appellant has not made out sufficient ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court in C.C.No.961/2019. Accordingly, I answer point No.2 in the 'negative'."

Even on perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court

what is noted by the Appellate Court in above para is forth

coming from the record. The petitioner -accused and her

counsel were present on the date of filing said joint memo

before the trial Court and they affixed their signature on

the order sheet and also on the joint memo stating that

they voluntarily agreed to pay amount to the complainant

by filing joint memo and agreed for installments. Even

though the judgment has been passed by the trial Court

on 23.10.2019 and the appeal came to be filed on

NC: 2025:KHC:22777

HC-KAR