Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1409 (KAR)

K. S. Umashree v. M. G. Suresh

2022-10-28

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the accused, challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court") in C.C.No.14347/2016, holding the accused as guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "N.I. Act"), which was further confirmed by the Court of the learned LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Sessions Judge's Court") in the appeal filed by her. Challenging the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Courts, the petitioner/accused has filed the present revision petition. 2. Learned counsels from both side along with their respective clients, as identified by their learned counsels, are physically present in the Court. 3. Learned counsels from both side have filed a joint application - I.A.No.3/2022, under Sec. 147 of the N.I. Act, and also the independent affidavits of the revision petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant. In the joint application filed by both side, the parties have reported that, they have settled the matter amicably and have compromised the matter. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant orally submitted his 'no objection' in allowing the revision petition by setting aside the impugned judgments and acquitting the petitioner/accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. Learned counsels for the parties also make their submission on the lines of the compromise petition. 5. The sum and substance of the joint application as well as the affidavits filed by both parties is that, the parties have settled the matter amicably, stating that, the petitioner herein (accused) has offered to pay in total a sum of Rs.6, 50, 000.00 to the respondent/complainant, as full and final settlement of the claim in this petition. Out of the said sum of Rs.6, 50, 000.00, a total sum of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 stated to have been deposited by the petitioner herein in the Courts during the pendency of the matter, is agreed to be released in favour of the respondent/complainant herein. Out of the said sum of Rs.6, 50, 000.00, a total sum of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 stated to have been deposited by the petitioner herein in the Courts during the pendency of the matter, is agreed to be released in favour of the respondent/complainant herein. Out of the balance sum of Rs.4, 50, 000.00, a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 is agreed to be payable by way of a Demand Draft or fund transfer to the Bank account of the respondent/complainant by the petitioner/accused on or before 19/11/2022. The remaining sum of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 is also agreed to be payable by the petitioner (accused) to the respondent (complainant) by way of a Demand Draft or fund transfer to the Bank account of the respondent (complainant) on or before 10/12/2022. It is further agreed that in case of default of payment of the balance amount by the petitioner/accused, she (revision petitioner) has undertaken to pay the entire fine amount of a sum of Rs.9, 00, 000.00 to the respondent/complainant as imposed by the Trial Court. 6. The enquiry made with the parties who are physically present convinces the Court that both the parties out of their free consent and volition and in their best interest have settled the matter amicably which is further corroborated by the submissions made by their learned counsels. As such, I am of the view that on the terms of the said joint application, the parties be permitted to compound the offence under Sec. 147 of the N.I. Act, however, subject to the payment of the graded cost by the petitioner/accused. 7. Sec. 147 of the N.I. Act has made every offence punishable under the N.I. Act as compoundable. As such, there is no bar for the parties in the proceeding to compound the offence. However, at the same time, the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1907 regarding imposing graded cost on litigant also to be borne in mind. According to the said Judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu's Case (supra), if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding is permitted to be allowed on the common condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of graded cost. 8. According to the said Judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu's Case (supra), if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding is permitted to be allowed on the common condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of graded cost. 8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the cheque amount is for a sum of Rs.7, 00, 000.00, as such, the graded cost would be Rs.1, 05, 000.00. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner (accused) submits that, the graded cost payable by the petitioner by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), which comes to a total sum of Rs.1, 05, 000.00 would be deposited by the petitioner. Accordingly, along with the application, the petitioner has also filed a Bankers Cheque bearing No.965313 dtd. 27/10/2022, drawn on the State Bank of India, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, in favour of "Member Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority", for a sum of Rs.1, 05, 000.00 towards graded cost as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra). The said Bankers cheque is accepted towards the graded cost payable by the petitioner/accused. Registry to do the needful in the matter. 10. In the light of the above terms entered into between the parties, a sum of Rs.90, 000.00 said to have been deposited by the present petitioner/accused in the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru in C.C.No.14347/2016 and another sum of Rs.1, 10, 000.00 said to have been deposited by the present petitioner/accused in the registry of this Court be released in favour of the respondent/complainant, by the concerned Trial Court and also by the registry of this Court, without any further orders from this Court in this regard, however, after his due identification and in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, taking into consideration the joint application- I.A.No.3/2022 filed by both side, the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra) and the circumstance of the case on hand, I.A.No.3/2022 is allowed. The parties are permitted to compound the offence under Sec. 147 of the N.I. Act. 11. Accordingly, taking into consideration the joint application- I.A.No.3/2022 filed by both side, the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra) and the circumstance of the case on hand, I.A.No.3/2022 is allowed. The parties are permitted to compound the offence under Sec. 147 of the N.I. Act. The matter is settled as per the terms mentioned in the joint application and also the independent affidavits filed by both side and the petitioner herein who was accused in the Trial Court in C.C.No.14347/2016 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands disposed of. In the light of the above settlement, as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent (complainant), I.A.No.2/2022 for release of the amount, stands dismissed as having become infructuous. Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and also to the Sessions Judge's Court, immediately.