IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRL.RP NO 1078 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI K SIVARAJA NAIDU S/O LATE K NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/ AT NO.118/4, FLAT NO.101 SAPTHAGIRI RESIDENCY-I 7TH CROSS, C K ACHUKATTU BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085 (BY SRI. M S HARINATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.SRI P LOKAJIT, S/O PALAKSHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO.6, NEW D SOUZA LAYOUT NEAR PES ENGINEERING COLLEGE BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU-560085 2.SMT K SRIVANI, W/O K SIVARAJA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.118/4, FLAT NO.101 SAPTHAGIRI RESIDENCY-I 7TH CROSS, C K ACHUKATTU BSK III STAGE ... PETITIONER BENGALURU-560085 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1432/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2017 PASSED BY THE XVI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.35094/2014 AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 138 OF N.I. ACT ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I.A.1/19 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 149 days in filing the revision. The application is also accompanied with the affidavit of the petitioner/accused No.2.
There is no objection to the said application.
By accepting the cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A.1/19 is allowed. Delay of 149 days in filing the revision is condoned.
In the present revision, parties have filed a joint memo reporting settlement. The said joint memo is signed by the petitioner/accused No.2, respondent No.2/ accused No.3 and respondent No.1/complainant and their advocates.
2. Smt. K.Srivani, wife of petitioner/accused No.2 -
K. Shivaraja Naidu is present before the Court. She submits that due to some inconvenience, her husband/accused No.2 - K. Shivaraja Naidu, is not present before the Court and he has signed the compromise petition in her presence; he has no objection to settle the matter amicably between the parties. She further submitted that her husband has been arrayed as formal accused in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 is also present and he endorsed the signature of the petitioner/accused No.2 found on the joint memo reporting settlement.
4. It is submitted that accused No.3 is a partner of the firm run by accused No.2 and she has been authorized to compound the said petition.
5. Respondent No.1- P.Lokajit, son of Palakshaiah is present before the Court along with his counsel. He submits that on behalf of the partnership firm, accused persons have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as full and final settlement to him . He further submits that he has no objection to receive the same and allow the petition and acquit the accused for the alleged offence.
6. Respondent No.3/accused No.3 is present before the Court. She handed over a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- to respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 acknowledges for receipt of the same.
7. The joint memo is taken on record. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the revision petition is allowed on the following terms;
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, in C.C.No.35094/2014, dated 01/09/2017 and subsequently confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.1432/2017 by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dated 17/12/2018 are set aside.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
In view of the disposal of the revision, I.A.2/19 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu