Crl.P.51/2021

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.51 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

DR. HIDAYATHUR RAHAMAN KHAN

SON OF LATE ABDUL HAFEEZ KHAN,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

RESIDING AT GRACE HOUSE,

AYSHIYANA - E - SHAHBAAZ MISBA,

NO.5, 8^TH B MAIN ROAD,

BTM LAYOUT, 1^ST STAGE,

BANGALORE - 560029.

... PETITIONER

(BY MISS. TAHURA ANZAR, ADV.)

AND:

MR. SARWAR MIYAN

SON OF HAJI MIYAN,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.6/8, 1^ST MAIN,

BISMILLAH NAGAR,

BANNARGATTA CROSS ROAD,

BANGALORE - 560 029.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S. JAVEED, ADV.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

Crl.P.51/2021

2

20.01.2020 IN C.C.NO.5754/2019 (ANNEURE-A) PASSED BY THE

XIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner, who is accused in C.C.No.5754/2019

pending before the XIII Additional C.M.M., Bangalore, for

the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the said Act

of 1881"), has approached this court challenging the

order dated 20.01.2020 passed in the said proceedings on

an application filed by the respondent-complainant under

Section 143A of the said Act of 1881.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for

the purpose of disposal of this petition are:

The respondent herein had filed a private complaint

before the trial court for the offence punishable under

Crl.P.51/2021

3

Section 138 of the said Act of 1881 against the petitioner

herein alleging that the cheque issued by the petitioner

for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards discharge of the

legally recoverable debt was dishonoured by the drawee

Bank and inspite of issuing statutory notice, the amount

covered under the cheque was not paid by the petitioner.

In the said proceedings, the trial court after recording the

sworn statement of the complainant had issued summons

to the petitioner-accused. After the petitioner appeared

before the trial curt, an application under Section 143A of

the said Act of 1881 was filed by the complainant. The

petitioner-accused had not filed any objections to the said

application. The trial court vide the impugned order has

allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay

20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation to

the complainant within a stipulated time. Being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this

court in this petition.

Crl.P.51/2021

4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is

violative of principles of natural justice. No reasons have

been assigned while passing the said order. She has

relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in

L.G.R.Enterprises & another -vs- Anbazhagan¹ and

submits that the discretion exercised by the learned

Magistrate cannot be unreasonable. She submits that

the trial court ought to have given cogent reasons for

directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount

and in the absence any such reasonings, the impugned

order cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the petitioner has not filed any objections to

the application field by the complainant. He submits that

the learned Magistrate having considered the facts of the

1 Crl.O.P.No.15438/2019 & connected matters DD 12.07.2019

Crl.P.51/2021

5

case has rightly exercised his discretionary powers, which

does not call for any interference and accordingly prays to

dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully considered the rival arguments

and also perused the material available on record.

7. From the perusal of the order impugned passed