IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3664 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
Mr.Nagaraju S/o Madappa Aged 55 years R/at Anemahal Village Kasaba Hobli Sakaleshpur Taluk Hassan District – 573 134.
(By Sri.S.N.Bhat, Advocate) AND:
Smt.B.P.Rajamma W/o Ramaiah Aged 56 years R/at S.P.Road Sakaleshpur Town Hassan District – 573 134.
(respondent served and unrepresented) …Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Sakaleshpura in C.C.No.659/2001 dated 03.04.2013.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2013 whereby the learned Magistrate has issued Non Bailable Warrant to the petitioner/accused.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner herein suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.659/2001. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Court and the same was dismissed. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before this Court in Crl.R.P.No.639/2009. This Court modified the order of the trial Court whereby conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was maintained and the sentence imposed by the trial Court was modified and the petitioner/accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,01,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. It was further ordered that the bail bond and the surety bond shall stand cancelled, if the balance fine amount was not deposited in the trial Court on or before 31.12.2012 in which event petitioner was directed to surrender and serve the jail sentence.
3. Since the petitioner did not pay the fine amount as awarded by the Court below, the learned Magistrate issued Non Bailable Warrant against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 03.04.2013.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute between the parties was compromised when the matter was pending before this Court and therefore he was not liable to pay the fine amount.
5. It is open for the petitioner to put-forth the said plea before the trial Court and seek appropriate order. The said plea cannot be a ground to quash the impugned order. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*