IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.446/2018 BETWEEN:
Mrs. Rohini Adukiya @ Rohini Agarwal, S/o Rohit Khemka, Aged about 39 years, R/at No.7, Thara Nivasa, 11th Main, Friends Colony, S.T. Bed, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 034. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Samiulla A Horkeri, Advocate) AND:
The State by Ashoknagar Police Station Bengaluru.
Rep by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. S.T. Naik, HCGP) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 passed on the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., on the file of XLIII Addl.C.M.M., Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru and to discharge the accused.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused challenging the order passed by the XLIII Addl.C.M.M., Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in C.C. No.54733/2014 dated 25.04.2017, where under the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by the accused seeking discharge came to be dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Before going to consider the submission made by the learned counsel, I feel it just and proper to putforth the facts of the cases on hand. The complaint was registered in Crime No.237/2013 against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of IPC. After investigation the chargesheet came to be filed and thereafter, the Court below has secured the presence of the accused and he was released on bail. The accused has filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to discharge.
4. It is the contention of the accused that she is liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,83,213/- to the complainant. Before filing of the case, due to intervention of friends, elders and well-wishers both accused and complainant, mutually discussed and settled the matter for an amount of Rs.17,50,000/- as full and final settlement and amount has also been paid in this behalf as per the compromise of MOU. Therefore, no offence has been made out and prays to discharge from the present case.
5. The said application has been opposed by the respondent - State by contending that the accused has forged the documents and cheated the complainant and there is ample material to connect the accused to the alleged crime.
6. The only contention which has been putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the intervention of the well-wishers, the matter has been compromised for a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- and thereafter, the entire amount has been paid through Demand Drafts and MOU. As such, the offence has not been made out. Whether the amount has not been paid or not is a matter of evidence.
7. As could be seen from the records, it is the specific contention of the complainant that the accused cheated the complainant by inducing and tampering the documents. If at all the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, then under such circumstance, it is not a case for discharge. But if at all they want to file an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., reporting compromise with the permission of the Court, then under such circumstance, the same can be considered by the Court below. But only on the basis of submission that the matter has been compromised and there is no merit in the case and he may be discharged, that cannot be considered at this juncture because of the reason whether the accused has cheated the complainant or not? and whether he has forged the documents are all matters of evidence.
8. The material placed on record is sufficient to frame the charges as against the accused and it is well settled principle of law that the accused is entitled to be discharged when the entire chargesheet material evidence is appreciated and if no case has been made out. But it is not the case of the accused that there is no material, but the only contention is that the matter has been compromised.
9. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioner has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The revision petition being devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
I.A. No.2/2018 is filed seeking stay. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No.2/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS