Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 840 (KAR)

Pramod Kumar K. v. Suraj M.

2022-07-04

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the accused, challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.11078/2013, holding the accused 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 Sessions Judge's Court in the appeal filed by him. Challenging the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Courts, the petitioner 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.1/2022, under Sec. 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the N.I. Act "), along with the independent affidavits of the petitioner (accused in the Trial Court) and the respondent (complainant in the Trial Court), reporting the settlement between them by way of compromise and seeking acquittal of the petitioner herein (accused) in C.C. No.11078/2013. 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 sworn affidavits of both parties is that, the parties have settled the matter amicably, stating that the petitioner (accused) has paid a total sum of Rs.4,40,000.00 to the respondent as a full and final settlement in the matter, in which, a sum of Rs.3,05,000.00 which is said to have been deposited in this Court during the pendency of the matter, is agreed to be released in favour of the respondent herein and the balance amount of Rs.1,35,000.00 is said to have been paid to the respondent in the form of Demand Draft bearing No.737328 dtd. 1/7/2022 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, High Court Branch, Bangalore. 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. 1/7/2022 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, High Court Branch, Bangalore. 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. Admittedly, in the instant case, the two cheques' amount is for a sum of Rs.4,00,000.00, as such, the graded cost would be Rs.60,000.00. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the graded cost payable by the petitioner by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), which comes to a total sum of Rs.60,000.00 would be deposited by the petitioner. Accordingly, along with the application, the petitioner has also filed a demand draft bearing No.033948 dtd. 1/7/2022, drawn on Nyayamitra Sahakari Bank Niyamita, High Court Building Branch, Bangalore, favouring the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.60,000.00 towards graded cost. A statement to that effect is also made by the petitioner in his affidavit. Hence, the said demand draft is accepted towards the graded cost payable by the petitioner. Registry to do the needful in the matter. 10. A statement to that effect is also made by the petitioner in his affidavit. Hence, the said demand draft is accepted towards the graded cost payable by the petitioner. Registry to do the needful in the matter. 10. Accordingly, taking into consideration the joint application- I.A.No.1/2022 and the independent affidavits 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.1/2022 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 the affidavits filed by both side and the petitioner herein who was accused in the Court of the XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.11078/2013 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands disposed of. Registry to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and also to the Sessions Judge's Court along with their respective records, immediately.