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

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1040

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R. Nataraj, J
TUSKER MARK REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR K. KRISHNAMURTHY – Appellant
Versus
ALPINE LEISURE HOLIDAYS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR ANIL KUMAR – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 828 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. PRATHIMA S.K.
For the Respondents: SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR B.S.

Settlement under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows for compounding of offences when parties reach an agreement.

Headnote:The judgment analyzed the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding a settlement between the parties over a sum of Rs.6,40,200/-. The court noted the resolution of the dispute and compounded the offence under Section 138 of the Act, thereby allowing the petitioners' revision petition and acquitting them of the charges. The final outcome included directives regarding the disbursement of the settled amount. The court framed the issues around the validity of the conviction and the potential for settlement under the relevant statute. The ratio decidendi involved the interpretation of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to allow for the compounding of offences upon amicable resolution between the parties. RESULT: The revision petition is allowed, and the judgments of conviction and order of sentence are set aside, with the petitioners acquitted of the offence.

Table of Content
1. settlement reached between parties resolving the dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court acknowledges the application for compounding offenses. (Para 3)
3. court orders acquittal of petitioners based on settlement. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 10.01.2019 passed by the LVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.56190/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and consequent sentence to pay fine of Rs.16,01,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The petitioner has also called in question the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed by the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-22) in Crl.A.No.25036/2019 by which, the judgment of conviction and the consequent sentence passed by the Trial Court was upheld.

2. When this revision petition is listed for orders, the parties have settled the dispute and have filed an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , in terms of which, the petitioners and the respondent have resolved to settle the dispute at a sum of Rs.6,40,200/-. The petitioners have stated that the said sum of Rs.6,40,200/- has been deposited before the Trial Court and that the same may be released to the respondent.

3. In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, the application filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is allowed. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The offence committed by the petitioners punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compounded. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2019 passed by the LVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.56190/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the judgment dated 20.04.2022 passed by the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH - 22) in Crl.A.No.25036/2019 are set aside.

4. The petitioners are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 .

5. Out of the sum of Rs.6,40,200/- deposited by the petitioners before the Trial Court, a sum of Rs.6,25,000/- shall be released to the respondent and a sum of Rs.15,200/- is ordered to be released in favour of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority towards graded cost as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H [ AIR 2010 SC 1907 ].

The Registry is directed to forthwith return the Trial Court records.

In view of disposal of the revision petition, pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed off.

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