SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sanjay P.S., S/o Suresh – Appellant
Versus
Abhishek M., S/o Muniraju K. – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.5944 of 2023
Decided on : 28-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI JAYSHAM JAYASIMHA RAO, ADVOCATE

Point of Law: Section 397 empowers Court of Sessions or even this Court to examine record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court against closure of any proceeding.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138, 143A – Criminal procedure Code, 1973 - Section 200, 397, 482, 397, (1), (2) - Cheques were dishonoured - Grant of interim compensation - Petitioner is before this Court calling in question order passed by LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision Petition directing petitioner to pay 10% of cheque amount to respondent within 60 days from date of order – An intermediate order would mean an order that emerges within a proceeding which culminates in closure of said intermediate proceeding. [Para 10]

Finding of the Court: Learned Magistrate applied that provision of law which was not at all applicable to case in hand before him, therefore, definitely it had affected right of accused - Consequently it cannot be said that, order which was passed by learned Magistrate was purely “interlocutory order” as contemplated under Section 397(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure - Learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside said order by exercising his power under Section 397(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure - An application under Section 143A of Act and its closure and would hold that revision before Court of Sessions under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. would be maintainable as an order on application filed under Section 143A of Act is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate order – Court answer issue that has arisen for consideration holding that an order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of Act, is not interlocutory order, but an intermediate order, as application is filed, and application is closed, under said provision, determining rights and liabilities of parties qua application and revision petition before Court of Sessions on order passed by learned Magistrate under Section 143A either allowing application, or rejecting it, would be maintainable for aggrieved party, be it complainant or accused to approach.

Result: `

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 17-06-2023 passed by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition No.527 of 2022 directing the petitioner to pay 10% of cheque amount to the respondent within 60 days from the date of the order.

2. Heard Sri Jaysham Jayasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant. The two have a transaction. The transaction is of Rs.37,50,000/-in total. The transaction leads to issuing of certain cheques by the petitioner in favour of the complainant. The cheques when presented, were dishonoured, on the score that instruction to the bankers was ‘stop payment’. The dishonouring of cheques leads to the complainant taking steps under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short) by causing legal notice upon the petitioner. The reply to the notice was submitted by the petitioner. It is then the complainant invokes the jurisdiction of the criminal Court by filing a private complaint before the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru in P.C.R.No.7249 of 2020 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance upon the complaint and registers a criminal case in C.C.No.23021 of 2021 for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

4. The issue in the lis does not concern merit of the claim of the parties before the concerned Court. During the pendency of proceedings, the complainant files an application under Section 143A of the Act seeking interim compensation of 20% of cheque amount. The petitioner objects to the said application by filing statement of objections and contending that there is no reason indicated as to why the amount of 20% should be allowed in favour of the complainant. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the complainant for grant of interim compensation as aforesaid. Upon rejection of the application, the complainant approaches the learned Sessions Judge by filing a criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the CrPC in Criminal Revision Petition No.527 of 2022. The learned Sessions Judge, by the order impugned, allows the revision petition and directs payment of 10% of the cheque amount to the complainant. The petitioner/accused is before this court calling in question the said order of the learned Sessions Judge by which 10% of the cheque amount is directed to be paid as interim compensation under Section 143A of the Act.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge a solitary contention that the revision petition filed before the learned Sessions Judge is not maintainable. In a petition that is not maintainable, any order that is passed is a nullity in law. It is his submission that the remedy that was available to the complainant was to knock at the doors of this Court and not the Court of Sessions, by invoking Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The contention is that the order passed in a proceeding that is without jurisdiction should be obliterated. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of MADHU LIMAYE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (1977) 4 SCC 551.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and the link in the chain of events are not in dispute, they would thus require no reiteration. The only issue that falls for consideration is, whether the revision petition before the Court of Sessions was maintainable against an order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Act?

8. To consider the issue that has arisen in the case it is germane to notice Section 143A of the Act. Section 143A of the Act comes into effect from 01-09-2018 pursu

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top