Crl.P.2717/2021

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2717 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SRI NAGARAJ. M.,

S/O LATE R. MUNISHAMAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

R/AT NO.45, 3^RD CROSS,

EAST LINK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,

BENGALURU - 560 003.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI M.S.NAGARAJA, ADV. - ABSENT)

AND:

SRI B. V. SRINIVAS,

S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

R/AT NO.189, 3^RD MAIN ROAD,

BETTAHALASURU,

BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562157

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI LOKESH.C., ADV.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE XII

ADDL.C.M.M.,

BENGALURU

IN

C.C.NO.24729/2019

DATED

02.03.2021. AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.P.2717/2021

2

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.24729/2019

pending before the XII 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 02.03.2021 passed by the said court on the

application filed by the respondent-complainant under

Section 143A of the said Act of 1881, directing the

petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as

interim compensation.

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.2717/2021

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.3,00,000/- 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.2717/2021

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. He 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 reasoning, the impugned

order cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the learned Magistrate having considered

the

facts

of

the

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

by the learned Magistrate, it is seen that the learned

Crl.P.2717/2021

5

Magistrate has not assigned any reason while directing

the petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as

interim compensation to the respondent. Reading of

Section 143A of the said Act of 1881 makes it very clear

that it is not necessary that in all cases the learned

Magistrat