Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28079
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H.P. SANDESH, J
UMA ABHILASHA IYER – Appellant
Versus
V. JANARDHAN – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.58/2016 | CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.438/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, SRI. M.D.BASAVANNA
For the Respondents: SRI. M.D.BASAVANNA, SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK
The court ruled that in dishonour cases under Section 138 N.I. Act, compensation should reflect the cheque amount with reasonable interest, aligning with principles of commercial fairness.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Issuance and dishonour of cheque for repayment of advance; enhancement of compensation - The trial court awarded minor compensation despite evidence of a significant commercial transaction and the fact that cheque was issued for the dishonoured amount under coercive circumstances. The High Court allowed the petition for enhancement of compensation based on insufficient previous award. (Paras 4, 20, 34)
(B) Legal Obligations - The drawer of a dishonoured cheque must compensate the holder, applicable under Section 117 of the N.I. Act, indicating that compensation should reflect the amount due along with reasonable interest. (Paras 28, 36)
Facts of the case:
The complainant filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging an offense under Section 138 N.I. Act due to the accused issuing a dishonoured cheque for Rs.15 lakhs in relation to a failed transaction concerning immovable property, following a sale agreement. Both parties acknowledged the issuance of the cheque.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered enhanced compensation reflecting the actual financial loss and awarded Rs.22,10,000 as compensation to the complainant, while dismissing the accused's petition.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the complainant established grounds to enhance compensation and if the accused found grounds to contest the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the trial court did not utilize its discretion in awarding appropriate compensation despite the clear evidence of the dishonoured cheque representing a legitimate business transaction.
Result: Petition for enhancement of compensation allowed; petition by the accused dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal revision petitions filed under section 397 of cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. facts underpinning claims of dishonored cheque. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments for enhancing compensation in revision petition. (Para 7) |
| 4. arguments raised by the accused contesting conviction. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. respondent's counter-arguments focused on cheque issuance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. court's examination of evidence and admissions regarding the cheque. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's analysis of appeals and maintainability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. discussion on legal provisions regarding revision and appeal. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. assessing complainant's rights under cr.p.c. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 10. court's interpretation of compensation under ni act. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 29) |
| 11. analysis of the parameters for enhancing fine under section 138. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 12. order allowing complainant's petition for enhanced compensation. (Para 34) |
CAV ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The parties are referred to in the name of complainant and accused for the sake of brevity and convenience of the Court.
3. Crl.R.P.No.58/2016 is filed by the complainant praying to set aside and modify the order of conviction and sentence dated 12.03.2014 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.12697/2009. Crl.R.P.No.438/2020 is filed by the accused against the judgment of the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.359/2014 dated 01.10.2015 on the file of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH- 69) contending that criminal appeal is not maintainable and that only revision petition is maintainable.
4. The complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused person has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act stating that the accused being a vendor of immovable property bearing Site No.134, new Khatha No.2/1, old Khatha No.14/4 situated at Doddanagamangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bengalore South Taluk, coming under the jurisdiction of Konnappana Agrahara Village Panchayath and measuring East to West 44 feet and North to South 90.09 inches, in all measuring a total extent of 3,993 sq.ft., the complainant and accused had entered into a sale agreement in respect of the said immovable property for a total sale consideration of Rs.40 lakhs dated 07.01.2008. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, the accused had acknowledged the same. In view of the above said transaction, the complainant further paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on 14.02.2008 for which the accused had acknowledged the same on 16.06.2008. The accused received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards part sale consideration, then complainant had paid totally a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. It is the further case of the complainant that accused had issued a legal notice to the complainant on 08.06.2008. After receipt of the said notice, the complainant suitably replied through her advocate on 14.06.2008 for the above said reasons and transaction, the complainant and accused came into mutual understanding, the accused agreed to return the above said part sale consideration for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs received from the complainant. For the above said liability on the demand, the accused had issued Cheque in favour of complainant for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs dated 10.02.2009 and when the same was presented, it was dishonoured. Again the accused requested to represent the same, accordingly, the same was represented, once again it was dishonoured. Hence, got issued the legal notice on 24.03.2009 through her advocate by RPAD and UCP and the postal receipt produced, the postal acknowledgement has not been received through legal notice, the complainant had demanded to pay the said Cheque amount. The accused on receipt of the said legal notice, gave reply notice through his advocate on 07.04.2009 simply denying the liability. Hence, complaint was filed and the Tri
