Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 275 (KAR)

SADIQ BASHA v. GOPALA REDDY

2021-02-17

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. 1. Learned counsel Sri.B.K.Venkatesh for the petitioner is present before the court physically. Learned counsel viz., Sri.Naveen Kumar for the respondent is also present before the court physically, who has submitted that he has already filed vakalath for the respondent on 10/2/2021. The said vakalath is placed on record. 2. In this petition, the petitioner/accused is seeking for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the court of Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District in C.C.No. 442/2012 dtd. 26/2/2019 whereby the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity "the N.I.Act"). 3. Subsequent to rendering the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District in Criminal Appeal No. 5008/2019. The said appeal was dismissed by order dtd. 21/9/2019 by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial court in C.C.No. 442/2012. However, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial court, so also the concurrent finding issued by the first appellate court, have been challenged in this revision petition by urging various grounds. 4. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also for the respondent have filed a joint memo under Sec. 320 clause (2) (6) (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "the Cr.P.C.") read with Sec. 147 of the N.I.Act. In this joint memo, the petitioner and the respondent have arrived at a settlement of dispute in respect of the cheque, so also in respect of the case ended in conviction by the trial court against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act. However, in view of the joint memo filed by both parties, they have arrived at a settlement. In this matter, both the parties have subscribed their signatures and their respective counsels have also subscribed their signatures. Therefore, it is relevant to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to Ss. Therefore, it is relevant to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to Ss. 482 and 320 of the Cr.P.C. relating to the inherent powers of this court under Sec. 482 for quashing of criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offence in respect of the compromise arrived at between the parties held, whether is available, if so, then it may have individual impact and whether Sec. 320 of Cr.P.C. creates a bar/limits or affects the inherent powers of the high court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. However, in the instant case, the petitioner and the respondent have arrived at a settlement in terms of the joint memo filed by them. Consequently the power to quash the criminal proceedings may be exercised or not where the parties have settled their dispute also depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the counsel for the petitioner in this matter has produced the order sheet maintained in C.C.No. 442/2012 whereby the petitioner is said to be arraigned as accused has deposited 75% of the fine amount i.e., Rs.7,20,000.00 through Demand Draft No. 954074156 dtd. 17/3/2020. To that effect, learned counsel has produced the Xerox copies of the DD and so also the certified copy of the order sheet maintained by the court of I Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC., at Anekal for compliance of the stipulated condition that accused has deposited 75% of the fine amount. In addition to production of those documents, the counsel for the petitioner has filed no objection for the disbursement of the amount in deposit before the trial court in C.C.No. 442/2012 which maintains in the order sheet of the said case. 5. When the parties in this matter have been arrived at a settlement in terms of the joint memo, it is appropriate to consider the said joint memo and consequently the petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is deserved for consideration. Accordingly, I have to proceed to pass the following order: The petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed in terms of the joint memo filed by the parties under Sec. 320 clause (2), (8) of the Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 147 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly, I have to proceed to pass the following order: The petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed in terms of the joint memo filed by the parties under Sec. 320 clause (2), (8) of the Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 147 of the N.I.Act. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial court in C.C.No. 442/2012 dtd. 26/2/2019 and so also the concurrent finding issued by the first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 5008/2019 dtd. 21/9/2019 are hereby set aside. Consequence upon the setting aside of the judgment of conviction by the trial court, the petitioner/accused is hereby absolved for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act. The respondent/complainant is hereby permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit before the trial court in C.C.No. 442/2012, on proper identification. Ordered accordingly. Consequence upon disposal of the main matter in terms of the joint memo filed by the parties, I.A.No. 2/2020 filed seeking for condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the revision petition is hereby allowed for the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 2/2020. Accordingly, it is accepted and delay is condoned as sought for.