Karnataka High Court
Veeranna S/O Bhimappa Ambiger vs Venkatesh S/O Pandappa Jadav on 4 September, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103181 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102216 OF 2021
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
IN CRL.P.103181 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
VEERANNA S/O BHIMAPPA AMBIGER,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. KUDALASANGAMA, NOW AT: ILKAL,
TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 125.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VENKATESH S/O PANDAPPA JADAV,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
RAKESH HARIHAR
S
HARIHAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
R/O. BALAKUNDI TANDA, TQ. HUNAGUND,
DHARWAD
BENCH
DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 125.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.08.2021 PASSED BY
LOK-ADALATH AND PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC HUNAGUND, IN C.C. NO.148/2021 (OLD C.C.
NO.195/2018) FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
138 OF N.I. ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021
HC-KAR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNAGUND, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P.102216 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
SHRI VENKTESH S/O PANDAPPA JADAV,
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BALAKUNDI TANDA, TQ. HUNAGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 125.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI VEERANNA S/O BHIMAPPA AMBIGER,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. KUDALASANGAM, NOW AT: ILKAL,
TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 125.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE AN ORDER ON MEMO DATED 31.08.2021 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HUNGUND, IN (P.C.
NO.04/2018) C.C. NO.148/2021 (C.C. NO.195/2018) FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. These two petitions arise between the same
parties out of the same proceedings and therefore they are
heard together and disposed off by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.103181/2025
had initiated proceedings against the respondent therein,
before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 (for short, 'NI Act').
4. It is the case of the petitioner that towards
repayment of the amount of ₹5,00,000/- which the
respondent was due to pay him, the cheque issued by him
for a sum of ₹5,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner dated
18.09.2017 drawn on ICICI Bank, Ilkal branch bearing
Cheque No.178872, was dishonoured by the drawee Bank
and in spite of service of statutory notice on the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
respondent, he had failed to pay the amount covered under
the cheque in question and it is under these circumstances,
petitioner had filed a private complaint in PCR No.4/2018
and in the said order after taking cognizance of the alleged
offence, respondent was being tried before the Jurisdictional
Court of Magistrate for the alleged offence in
C.C.No.148/2021.
5. It appears that during the pendency of the
proceedings before the trial Court, an application under
Section 147 of NI Act was filed by the parties on
26.04.2021, wherein it was stated that respondent had
agreed to pay the amount of ₹2,00,000/- to the petitioner
towards full and final settlement of the amount covered
under the cheque in question and it was further stated that
the said amount shall be paid by respondent on or before
26.07.2021. The trial Court therefore had referred the
parties to the Lok Adalath by order dated 26.04.2021. The
matter was thereafter called before the Lok Adalath on
14.08.2021. On the same date, the application filed by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
parties under Section 147 of NI Act, wherein respondent
had agreed to pay an amount of ₹2,00,000/- was taken into
consideration and the respondent/accused was acquitted in
view of respondent agreeing to pay the aforesaid amount.
The order dated 14.08.2021 passed by the Lok Adalath
reads as under:
"Complainant and counsel have filed application
U/Sec.147 of N.I.Act stating the accused has agreed to
pay entire amount as per compromise. Hence, they have
sought for closing the case in view of accused paying the
entire amount. Therefore, we proceed to pass the
following...
ORDER
The application filed U/Sec.147 of N.I.Act is
allowed. Accused is acquitted in view of accused agreeing
to pay entire cheque amount."
6. It appears that thereafter an application was filed
by the petitioner before the trial Court to take the disposed
off case on Board and issue non-bailable warrant against
the respondent since he had not paid any amount as agreed
and undertaken in the application filed under Section 147 of
NI Act. The learned trial Judge by order dated 31.08.2021
had accordingly issued non-bailable warrant to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the
respondent/accused is before this Court in Criminal Petition
No.102216/2021. Challenging the order passed by the Lok
Adalath on 14.08.2021 acquitting the respondent in view of
the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act,
petitioner/complainant is before this Court in Criminal
Petition No.103181/2025.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant
submits that no amount was paid by the respondent/
accused as per the terms of application filed under Section
147 of NI Act, on 26.04.2021. Neither the parties nor their
advocates were present before the Lok Adalath on
14.08.2021 and in spite of the same, application under
Section 147 of NI Act was considered and respondent was
acquitted. He submits that reading of the order of acquittal
itself would go to show that only based on the undertaking
given by the respondent to pay an amount of ₹2,00,000/-,
he has been acquitted. He submits that respondent taking
the advantage of the order dated 14.08.2021 passed by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
Lok Adalath has thereafter not paid any amount and
virtually he has committed fraud on the Court and
accordingly prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/accused submits that the amount of
₹2,00,000/- is already paid in cash to the petitioner/
complainant. In spite of the same, he has filed an
application before the learned Magistrate to issue non-
bailable warrant against the respondent/accused in a
disposed off case, which was not permissible. He submits
that once the matter is disposed off before the Lok Adalath,
learned Magistrate had no power to issue non-bailable
warrant against the respondent/accused. Accordingly, he
prays to allow Criminal Petition No.102216/2021 and
dismiss Criminal Petition No.103181/2025. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand Garg Vs.Harpal
Singh & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.)
No.8050/2025, disposed off on 11.08.2025.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
9. The application filed by the parties before the
trial Court under Section 147 of NI Act on 26.04.2021 reads
as follows:
APPLICATION U/S 147 OF NI ACT
"EzÀgÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢ü ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ:£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ §gÀPÉÆAqÀ
«£ÀAw Cfð K£ÉÃAzÀgÉ-
¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ NI Act PÀ®A.
138 gÀr ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ gÁf DUÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ
PÀ®A. EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢ü ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀ£ÄÀ ¥ÀjavÀgÄÀ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
»ÃUÁV ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀ£À ªÀÄzsÀå zÉéñÀ ¨sÁªÀ£É
¨É¼ÉAiÀĨÁgÀzÀÄ C£ÀÄß EgÁzɬÄAzÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ü ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ gÁf DVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸ÀzÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ZÉPï ºÀt 5,00,000=00 UÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ
gÀÆ:2,00,000=00UÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀ£ÄÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢üUÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä M¦àPÆ
É ArzÀÄÝ
CzÀPÉÌ ¦AiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄÄ PÀ§Æ® ªÀ, vÀAiÀiÁgÀ EgÀÄvÁÛ£É. DzÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ
ºÀtzÀ CqÀZÀ£É EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆævÀ£ÄÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ
EA¢¤AzÀ CAzÀgÉ 26-04-2021 jAzÀ 26-07-2021 gÀ M¼ÀUÁV ¸ÀzÀgÀ
gÀÆ:2,00,000=00UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä M¦àPÆ
É ArgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
PÁgÀt ªÉÄÃgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ gÁf DVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÁ §gÀPÆ
É AqÀ «£ÀAw Cfð."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
10. It appears that, upon receipt of the said
application, learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.04.2021
had directed the matter to be called before the Lok Adalath
whenever fixed by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority.
The Order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the learned
Magistrate reads as follows:
"Complainant and accused present. Complainant
has filed application u/s 147 of NI Act to accept the
compromise. Complainant has stated he has agreed to
the terms of the application. Compounding application is
taken on record.
Call before lok adalath whenver fixed by KLSA."
11. Thereafter on 14.08.2021, the matter was listed
before the Lok Adalath and it appears that on the said date
there was no representation on behalf of the parties before
the Lok Adalath. Neither the parties nor their learned
advocates had appeared before the Lok Adalath. However,
the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act was
considered by the Lok Adalath and Order dated 14.08.2021
which is quoted in the preceding paragraph was passed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
12. Perusal of the said Order would go to show that
only for the reason that respondent/accused had agreed to
pay amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner under the
application filed by the parties under Section 147 of NI Act,
the Lok Adalath had acquitted the respondent, though there
was no material to show the agreed amount was paid.
Though the respondent/accused had only agreed to pay
₹2,00,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of the amount of
₹5,00,000/- covered under the cheque in question, the Lok
Adalath has observed that respondent/accused had agreed
to pay entire cheque amount, which itself would go to show
that there was no application of mind by the Lok Adalath
while the Order dated 14.08.2021 which is impugned in
Criminal Petition No.103181/2025 was passed.
13. Alleging that respondent/accused had not paid
any amount to the petitioner after the application under
Section 147 of NI Act was filed, wherein respondent/
accused had agreed to pay the amount of ₹2,00,000/-
towards full and final settlement of the amount covered
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
under the cheque in question within the time mentioned in
the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act, the
petitioner had filed application before the learned Magistrate
to advance the disposed of case and issue non-bailable
warrant to the respondent. The learned Magistrate
accordingly on 31.08.2021, had issued non-bailable warrant
to the respondent and after the non-bailable warrant was
executed against the respondent/ accused, he was
produced before the trial Court on 17.11.2021 and on the
said date he had executed personal bond for a sum of
₹1,00,000/- and also furnished surety to the likesum before
the trial Court and the matter was adjourned on
18.11.2021.
14. On 18.11.2021, the surety of the
respondent/accused had produced RTC extract and Aadhar
card and after perusal of the same, the surety was accepted
by the trial Court. The order dated 18.11.2021 passed by
the learned Magistrate reads as follows:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
"Surety by name Sri.Krishnappa Chatrappa Karbari,
Age. 69 years Resident of Balakundi is present and ready
to stand as surety to Accused. He has produced RTC
extract and Adhar card. Enquired surety, surety accepted.
Office to take bonds.
Accused prays two months time to pay the amount
as mentioned in the compromise application. Time is
given. It is made clear that in the event of accused not
paying the amount on or before 18.01.2022 the
complainant can proceed as per law against the accused
in respect of award of Lok Adalath."
15. From a reading of the aforesaid order, it is very
clear that on 18.11.2021, the respondent/accused who had
appeared before the trial Court had prayed for granting 2
months time to pay the amount as mentioned in the
compromise application. In spite of such a submission made
by him before the trial Court, he has now taken contention
before this Court that entire amount as agreed in the
compromise application filed under Section 147 of NI Act,
was paid to the petitioner. Therefore, it is apparent that
respondent/accused who has not paid any amount to the
petitioner pursuant to the compromise application filed
under Section 147 of NI Act before the trial Court, taking
advantage of the order dated 14.08.2021 passed by the Lok
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
Adalath, in the absence of the parties and their learned
advocates, has tried to play fraud on the Court as well as
the petitioner.
16. Any attempt by a person to make unlawful gain
at the cost of other parties can be considered as a
fraudulent act within the meaning of Section 25 of IPC.
Section 25 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:
"25. "Fraudulently".--
A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does
that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise."
17. The word 'fraud' is defined under Section 17 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which reads as follows:
"17. 'Fraud' defined.--
'Fraud' means and includes any of the following acts
committed by a party to a contract, or with his
connivance, or by his agent', with intent to deceive
another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to
enter into the contract:--(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of
that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to
be true;
(2)the active concealment of a fact by one having
knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3)a promise made without any intention of
performing it;
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
(4)any other act fitted to deceive;
(5)any such act or omission as the law specially
declares to be fraudulent.
Explanation.--Mere silence as to facts likely to affect
the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not
fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that,
regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person
keeping silence to speaks, or unless his silence, is, in
itself, equivalent to speech."
18. The act committed by the respondent/accused
clearly amounts to fraud, and the intention of the
respondent was only to make unlawful gain and defraud the
petitioner/complainant. It is trite that fraud unravels
everything and if it is found that if any order or decree is
obtained by playing fraud, then such orders needs to be
revived and the proceedings need to be restored and
continued from the stage in which the said order was
passed. No Court can allow a party to take advantage of an
order which was obtained by fraud.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
reported in (2000)3 SCC 581 has reiterated that fraud
unravels everything and has observed as follows:
"3. "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus
et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which
has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord
Denning observed in a language without equivocation
that "no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can
be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for,
fraud unravels everything" (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v.
Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956)
2 WLR 502 (CA)] )."
20. In the case of Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) Vs.
Shaw Bros. reported in (1992) 1 SCC 534, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as follows:
"20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most
solemn proceedings in any civilised system of
jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human
conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's
sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me
into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'. It
has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In
Webster's Third New International Dictionary fraud in
equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or
concealment by which one person obtains an advantage
against conscience over another or which equity or public
policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's
Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional
perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in
reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing
belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false
representation of a matter of fact whether by words or
by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed,
which deceives and is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury........"
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
21. In the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry Vs. Govt. of
A.P. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed as follows:
"21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law that if any
judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said
to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries,
Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed: "Fraud avoids all
judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."
22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment,
decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court,
tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of
the law. Such a judgment, decree or order--by the first
court or by the final court--has to be treated as nullity by
every court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in
any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in
collateral proceedings.
23. ***
24. In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading Cases, 13th
Edn., p. 644, explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey, C.J.
stated that though a judgment would be res judicata and
not impeachable from within, it might be impeachable
from without. In other words, though it is not permissible
to show that the court was "mistaken", it might be shown
that it was "misled". There is an essential distinction
between mistake and trickery. The clear implication of the
distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment
cannot be brought on the ground that it has been decided
wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the decision was one
which should not have been rendered, but it can be set
aside, if the court was imposed upon or tricked into giving
the judgment.
25. It has been said : fraud and justice never dwell
together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and
deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini
patrocinari debent)."
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
22. In the present case, at the stage of recording of
the evidence of complainant(PW1), the parties had filed
application before the trial Court under Section 147 of NI
Act, wherein it was agreed that respondent/accused was to
pay a sum of ₹2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement
of the amount covered under the cheque in question and in
the agreement, it was specifically mentioned that agreed
amount of ₹2,00,000/- shall be paid by the
respondent/accused on or before 26.07.2021. There is also
a mention in the application to take up the application for
consideration after three months. However, after the
application dated 26.04.2021 was taken on record the
learned Magistrate had directed the matter to be called
before the Lok Adalath. When the matter was listed before
the Lok Adalath subsequently on 14.08.2021, though there
was no representation on behalf of the parties, the
application filed under Section 147 of NI Act was considered
and the respondent/accused was acquitted.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
23. It is relevant to note here that though in the
order dated 14.08.2021 originally it was mentioned that
respondent/ accused had paid the amount to the petitioner,
subsequently, necessary corrections were carried out in the
said order and it is mentioned that respondent/accused had
agreed to pay the amount to the petitioner/complainant.
The respondent/accused has failed to produce any material
either before the trial Court or before this Court to show
that he had paid the aforesaid amount of ₹2,00,000/- to the
petitioner in terms of his undertaking in the application filed
under Section 147 of NI Act. On the other hand, after he
was produced before the trial Court, on 18.11.2021, he had
sought for two months time to pay the amount as
mentioned in the compromise application. In A.V.Papayya
Sastry's case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that order
or decree obtained by playing fraud can be challenged in
any Court at any stage, any time, in appeal, revision, writ
or even in collateral proceedings.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
24. The judgment in the case of Gyan Chand Garg
(supra) was rendered in a case where the parties had
entered into settlement, and in terms of the settlement,
agreed amount was paid by the accused under 2 demand
drafts, along with 3 cheques. In the case on hand, no
amount was paid to the petitioner/complainant nor was any
instrument issued by respondent/complainant to the
petitioner towards payment of the agreed amount. On the
other hand, in the application, it is mentioned that within an
outer limit mentioned in the application, the agreed amount
shall be paid. It is only based on such a statement in the
application filed under Section 147 of NI Act, the Lok
Adalath has allowed the application filed under Section 147
of NI Act and has acquitted respondent/accused by order
dated 14.08.2021. As on the date of the said order the time
for payment mentioned in the application filed under
Section 147 of NI Act had already expired and without even
verifying whether the amount mentioned in the application
has been paid within the time mentioned in the application,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
the order dated 14.08.2021 was passed. Therefore, the
judgment in the case of Gyan Chand Gard (supra) cannot
be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
25. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the order dated 14.08.2021 passed in C.C.148/2021 by
the Lok Adalath needs to be quashed to secure ends of
justice, the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
needs to be exercised, failing which, justice would be denied
to the complainant, who was diligently prosecuting his
complaint and on the other hand, the respondent/accused,
taking advantage of the order dated 14.08.2021 passed by
the Lok Adalath, has tried to play fraud on the Court as well
as on the petitioner/complainant. In spite of the petitioner
undertaking before the Magistrate on 18.11.2021 to pay the
amount as mentioned in compromise application he has
contended before this Court that he has already made the
payment and therefore learned Magistrate was not justified
in issuing NBW against him. This conduct of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
respondent/accused in trying to blow hot and cold needs to
be deprecated and his petition deserves to be dismissed
with costs. Under the circumstances, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Petition No.103181/2025 is
allowed and the order dated 14.08.2021
passed in C.C.No.148/2021 by the Lok
Adalath allowing the application filed under
Section 147 of NI Act and consequently
acquitting the respondent/accused is set
aside and the complaint is restored to file,
with a direction to the learned Magistrate to
proceed further against the
respondent/accused in accordance with law.
ii. Consequently, Criminal Petition
No.102216/2021 filed by the
respondent/accused is dismissed with cost
of Rs.25,000/- which shall be paid by him
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
HC-KAR
to the petitioner/complainant before the
trial Court.
iii. Since the parties are represented by their
learned advocates, the parties are directed
to appear before the trial Court on
22.09.2025, without waiting for further
notice from the trial Court in
C.C.No.148/2021 (Old No.195/2018).
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KGK
CT:BCK
