1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1807 OF 2021

BETWEEN

SRI H.S. BALASUBRAMANYA

S/O. LATE H. SHAMANNA,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

RESIDING AT GARAKARALA STREET,

O.M.B. ROAD,

CHIKKABALLAPUR 3 562 101.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PARVATHY R. NAIR, ADVOCATE

FOR SMT. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI N. SHASHI SHEKAR

S/O. NARAYANASWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

RESIDING AT WARD NO.2,

TEACHER'S LAYOUT, NEAR COCOON MARKET,

CHIKKABALLAPUR 3 562 101,

ALSO RESIDING AT NO.130,

VAPASANDRA,

CHIKKABALLAPUR 3 562 101.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MOHANCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2021 PASSED IN C.C.NO.424 OF

2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,

2

CHIKKABALLAPURA AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

TO DEPOSIT RS.2,60,000/- AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO

BEING CROSS EXAMINES AND THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2021

PASSED IN CRLIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.5 OF 2021

PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA.

`

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the complainant under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order

passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Chikkaballapura in Criminal Revision Petition

No.5/2021 for having rejected the revision petition filed by

the petitioner for rejecting the memo filed by the petitioner

for refusing to entertain cross-examination of respondent-

accused.

2.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3.

The case of the complainant is that the

complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of

3

Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 8N.I. Act9) that

the cheque issued by the respondent-accused has become

dishonored and returned with the endorsement stating

FUNDS INSUFFICIENT and after filing the complaint by

taking cognizance, the complainant filed an application

under Section 143(A) of the N.I. Act., for granting interim

compensation. Accordingly, the trial Court awarded 20%

of the compensation and directed the respondent to

deposit interim compensation of Rs.2,60,000/ and if he

failed to deposit the said amount, then the complainant

can recover the said amount in the manner provided as

per Section 143A of the N.I. Act. But respondent-accused

did not deposit the amount and the matter was posted for

recording the evidence. In the meanwhile, the complainant

filed a memo for directing the respondent-accused to

deposit 20% of the compensation before proceeding

further in the case. The Magistrate vide order dated

30.01.2021 rejected the memo and the same was

challenged before the District and Sessions Judge which

4

came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this

Court.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously

contended that once the order passed by the trial Court

directing the accused-respondent to deposit 20% of the

cheque amount as compensation as contemplated under

Section 143A of N.I. Act, until deposit of the said amount,

the right of cross-examination shall not be provided to the

accused and non-compliance of the order of the Court is

nothing but contempt of the Court. Therefore, the trial

Court and First Appellate Court has committed error in

rejecting the memo and allowing the accused for cross-

examination. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same.

5.

In support of the arguments, learned counsel

also relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in Crl.P.No.462/2020 dated 13.10.2020.

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent-accused seriously objected the same and

contended that