IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1169/2015 BETWEEN Sri Sathyavelu S/o Kadirivelu Aged about 45 years Residing at No.1 BDA Layout Opp:Kempfort Murugeshpalya Bangalore – 560017.
(By Sri. Mahabaleshwar .G .C, Advocate) AND Smt. R Jayamma W/o Late Venkataramana Reddy Aged about 77 years Residing at No.102 M Ramaiah Reddy Compound Kodihalli, Ulsoor Post Bangalore – 560008.
(By Sri. M. C Jayakeerthi, Advocate) ... Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to, set aside the order dated 21.08.2015 passed by the Hon’ble LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Mayohall Unit, Bangalore in Crl.A. No.25037/2014, rejecting the appeal and set aside the judgment and sentence dated 05.02.2014 passed by the Hon’ble XIV Additional C.M.M., Mayohall at Bangalore in C.C.No.26678/2012.
This Criminal Revision Petition Coming on for Reporting Settlement, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2015 rendered by the LVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2014 rendered by the XIV ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.26678/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
2. The factual matrix of the petition is that petitioner/accused is said to be a family friend of respondent/complainant. On 10.01.2011 accused approached her and borrowed hand loan of Rs.8 lakhs for family necessities agreeing to repay the same within six months. After six months accused issued a cheque to the complainant on her demand. The complainant presented the said cheque before the Bank and the same came to be returned with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, complainant initiated proceedings against the accused.
3. The trial Court after taking the cognizance, issued summons to the accused and on his appearance the plea of the accused was recorded wherein he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove her case, the complainant got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. After completion of her evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 was recorded. Thereafter, accused examined himself as DW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both side, passed the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for a period of six months and to pay Rs.9,45,000/- as compensation/fine. In default to pay the compensation to undergo SI for 45 days.
5. Aggrieved by this judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.25037/2014. The Court below vide judgment dated 21.08.2015 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, this petition by the petitioner/accused.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have filed a memo dated 13.12.2019 under Section 147 of N.I. Act r/w Section 320(2)(6) & (8) of the Cr.P.C reporting the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute. They submit that this petition may be disposed of in terms of the memo. The memo reads as under:
“The petitioner and the respondent most respectfully submits that they have settled the matter amicably as the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakh Rupees) to the respondent/complainant as under:
Two Lakh Fifty Thousand (Rs.2,50,000/-) by Demand draft bearing No. “061698” dated 9.12.2019 drawn on HDFC Bank Fifty Thousand Rupees (Rs.50,000/-) by cash on 9.12.2019.
The respondent has duly acknowledged the receipt of the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakh Rupees) from the petitioner and states that she shall not have any claim whatsoever from the petitioner in respect of the disputed cheque.
The petitioner and the respondent prays that the above petition may kindly be disposed in terms of this memo in the ends of justice and equity.”
7. The memo is duly signed by both the parties and their respective counsel. Petitioner – Satyavelu is present before the court. Respondent – Jayamma has subscribed her signature to the Memo and her son-in- law namely Sri Aswatha Reddy, is present before the Court on her behalf since she has been hospitalized as per the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent. The same has been conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the memo, respondent/complainant has duly acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs only) from the petitioner/accused.
In the interest of justice, the memo is taken on record. In terms of the memo, this criminal revision petition is hereby disposed of. Consequently, the judgment dated 21.08.2015 in Crl.A.No.25037/2014 rendered by the LVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2014 rendered by the XIV ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.26678/2012 are hereby set-aside. Petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
Sd/- JUDGE DKB