The petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was maintainable without exhausting the remedy under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., and the court had the authority to treat the case as a miscellaneous case and issue a warrant for recovery of the amount as fine.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.) for quashing the order dated 25-2-2020 passed by the XXXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C. No.57252 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, he filed a case against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After entering the appearance, the petitioner and the respondent have filed joint memo for compromise for settling the dispute for Rs.33.00 lakh on terms, which is as under:

"A. Rs.2,00,000/- on 19-02-2019 via Cheque Bearing No.002297 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing Account No.0812158814.

B. Rs.2,00,000/- on 19-03-2019 via Cheque Bearing No.002298 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing Account No.0812158814.

C. Rs.2,00,000/- on 23-04-2019 via Cheque Bearing No.002299 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing Account No.0812158814.

D. Rs.2,00,000/- on 28-05-2019 via Cheque Bearing No.002300 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing Account No.0812158814.

E. Rs.6,25,000/- on 18-06-2019 via Cheque Bearing No.003494 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing Account No.0812158814.

F. Rs.6,25,000/- on 23-07-2019 via Cheque Bearing No.003495 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing Account No.0812158814.

G. Rs.6,25,000/- on 27-08-2019 via Cheque Bearing No. 003496 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing Account No.0812158814.

H. Rs.6,25,000/- on 24-09-2019 via Cheque Bearing No.003497 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank bearing Account No.0812158814."

4. It is further case of the petitioner that, the respondent agreed to pay the amount as mentioned above and to pay the interest at the rate of 2.5% per month until realisation of the said amount. Condition No.6 of the joint memo for compromise says that if the cheque is not honoured, then the petitioner is at liberty to take legal action against the respondent and the petitioner is reserved all the rights and liberties to reopen the case for the purpose of recovery of amount. The Trial Court closed the case on the terms of the compromise.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that, he presented the cheques given by the respondent before the Court and all eight cheques were dishonoured for 'funds insufficient'. Therefore, the petitioner filed a memo to reopen the case and also filed a memo of calculation and prayed for recovery of amount of Rs.33.00 lakh with interest at the rate of 2.5%, which came to be dismissed by the Magistrate and the same is under challenge before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the matter was ended up in compromise, but the respondent has failed to make the payment as agreed in terms of the compromise and the Trial Court has dismissed the memo of calculation, which is not correct. Hence, he prayed for quashing the order and to permit him to reopen the case against the respondent.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has objected the petition and contended that once the case is ended up in compromise either in the Court or in the Lok Adalat, the only option available to the petitioner is to file a case for recovery. He cannot seek for reopening of the criminal case which is already closed by the Magistrate. Even otherwise, the respondent has already paid the entire amount to the petitioner and same was referred by the Magistrate in his order and contended that the petition is not maintainable under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as the petitioner is required to file Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge. Therefore, without exhausting the remedy before the Sessions Judge filing the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record,