Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH, J
Lagadapati Malyadri, S/o Mr. Lakshmi Narasaiah – Appellant
Versus
M. Prince Paul Raj, S/o Maria Pitchai Muthu – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.434/2022 C/W. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.438/2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. EUGENE PRABHU BARRAT, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR K.N., ADVOCATE
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while addressing the maintainability of joint complaints under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 357 - Conviction for dishonor of cheques and sentencing to pay fine and compensation - Conviction upheld as the Trial Court correctly assessed the material on record, despite the argument of joint complaint maintainability. (Paras 1, 12, 14)
(B) Joint Complaints - The court discusses the maintainability of joint complaints under Cr.P.C., reaffirming that unless distinct offences are charged, such complaints are not permissible. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The complainants entered into a sale agreement for property and paid an advance. After the agreement was terminated, cheques issued by the accused were dishonored, leading to the complaints. (Paras 2, 15)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's conviction was based on the absence of a defense from the accused and the material evidence supporting the dishonor of cheques. (Paras 14, 15)
Issues: The primary issues were the maintainability of the joint complaint and whether the courts erred in not considering it. (Paras 12, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the joint complaint was permissible given the unique circumstances of the case, but also noted the general principle against joint complaints under Cr.P.C. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: Both revision petitions are dismissed.
CAV ORDER
These two revision petitions are filed challenging the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’ for short) and sentencing to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and also invoking Section 357 of Cr.P.C. directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,56,000/- in each case to the complainant vide order dated 02.11.2019 and also the order passed in Crl.A.No.25009/2020 and Crl.A.No.25008/2020 confirming the distinct order. The parties are one and the same and hence taken up both the matters together for consideration.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainants in C.C.No.51715/2017 and C.C.No.53283/2017 is that the complainants agreed to purchase the property bearing No.30 measuring 40 ft. x 60 ft. for sale consideration of Rs.92,40,000/- and accordingly entered into a sale agreement dated 10.12.2015 and the complainants paid the advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/- to the accused on different dates. It is also the case of the complainants that the land has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout and as such the complainants could not get the loan from the bank. In the meantime, the accused caused legal notice terminating the sale agreement. In view of the same, the matter was settled between the parties amicably and they entered into a settlement deed dated 15.09.2016 and the accused made the part payment and also promised to repay the said amount and issued cheques. The complainants presented the cheques, which had been issued by the accused and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, legal notice was issued and the accused did not comply and hence complaint was filed separately and in both the cases, the accused persons were secured and they did not pleaded guilty and hence trial was conducted. The complainants in both the cases examined themselves as P.W.1 and got marked the documents in exhibit ‘P’ series and the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted the accused in both the cases.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, appeals were filed in Crl.A.No.25009/2020 and Crl.A.No.25008/2020 and the Appellate Court having re-assessed the material on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and hence these two revision petitions are filed before this Court.
4. The common grounds have been urged in both the revision petitions contending that there are suppression of material facts. In the entire case, nowhere it was stated that the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 is issued by which accused and the signature in the said cheque belongs to accused No.1 or accused No.2. At the time of marking of the documents, it was marked only as “signature of the accused”. When there are two accused in the case and only one cheque and it contains one signature, it is very important to mark the signature belongs to which accused and then only the Trial Court can come to the conclusion that which of the accused is necessary and which of the accused is not necessary to the said case. P.W.1 in her cross- examination states that she do not know who has signed the cheque and further the witness said that accused No.1 may have issued the cheque and her husband collected the cheque from the accused.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases is that the Trial Court ought not to have initiated the proceedings against both the accused since cheque was issued by one of the accused. The learned counsel contend that joint complaint is filed and the same is not maintainable and both the Courts failed to consider the said fact into consideration that cheque was issued by one accused and not both the accused and hence the very complaint itself is not maintainable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of NARAYANASWAMI AND OTHERS v. EGAPPA REDDI AND OTHERS repo
