SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200274/2022

Between:

Smt. Manisha W/o Ramesh Rathod,

Age: 36 years, Occ: Household work,

R/o. Panchasheel Nagar,

Near Vijayapura-Indi Road,

Indi, Tq.Indi, Dist. Vijayapura-586209.

… Petitioner

(By Sri R.S.Lagali, Advocate)

And:

Vivekanand S/o Kalappa Badiger,

Age: 35 years, Occ: Business,

R/o. Indi town, Tq. Indi,

Dist: Vijayapura-586209.

… Respondent

(By Sri Ganesh Naik, Advocate)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying to allow this criminal petition and thereby

quash the order dated 28.01.2022 passed in Criminal Case

No.2579/2021

(Arising

out

of

Private

Complaint

No.64/2021) by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Court, Indi on the

application filed U/s 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act by

the respondent herein, thereby directing the petitioner to

deposit 20% of the cheque amount as the interim

compensation.

2

This petition coming on for Admission this day, the

Court passed the following:

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash

the order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the learned Civil

Judge and JMFC, Indi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial

Court’) in C.C.No.2579/2021 arising out of Private

Complaint No.64/2021 on the application filed under

Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for

short ‘N.I. Act’).

2.

Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for

respondent. Perused the material on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated

28.01.2022 passed by the Trial Court allowing the

application filed by the complainant under Section 143A of

the N.I. Act and directing the accused to deposit 20% of

the cheque amount within 60 days from the date of the

3

order. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant has

filed an application for grant of interim compensation

assigning reason that the complainant is in need of money

for performing marriage of his sister that is to be held on

21.02.2022, but the Trial Court has not discussed anything

about the reason as to why the application is to be allowed

and why 20% of the cheque amount is to be awarded as

interim compensation. Therefore, the impugned order is

not a speaking order and it lacks reasoning.

4.

Learned counsel places reliance on the decision

of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.

Vijaya vs. Shekharappa and another1 in support of his

contention to contend that the Trial Court should have

given reasons for awarding interim compensation that too

of 20% while exercising discretion under Section 143A of

the N.I. Act. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the

impugned order by allowing the petition.

1 CRL.P. No.100261/2022 dated 17.02.2022

4

5.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent/complainant supporting the impugned order

passed by the Trial Court submitted that discretion

contemplated under Section 143A of the N.I. Act for

awarding interim compensation after recording the plea

was exercised in a judicious manner. Sufficient reasons

are assigned for exercising such jurisdiction. Therefore, it

cannot be said that the Trial Court has blindly proceeded to

allow the application and directed payment of interim

compensation under Section 143A of the N.I. Act. By no

stretch of imagination, it can be said that the impugned

order lacks application of mind and exercise of jurisdiction

was not judicious. Therefore, decision of this Court in

Smt. Vijaya’s case (supra) is not at all applicable to the

facts of the case.

6.

Learned counsel further submitted that the

complainant before the Trial Court is already examined.

The accused has not chosen to cross-examine the

complainant and now the matter is posted for recording

5

statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,

which shows that the petitioner/accused is not willing to

co-operate with the trial Court in disposal of the matter

expeditiously, but on the other hand, she is willing to drag

on the matter infinitely. Therefore, he prays for dismissal

of the petition as devoid of merits.

7.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the impugned order is liable

to be quashed invoking inherent power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? What order?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the

following:

R E A S O N S

8.

The complainant had filed an application under

Section 143A of the N.I. Act, before recording the plea of

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138

of the N.I. Act. The said application came to be dismissed

6

by

the

Trial

Court

vide

order

dated

29.10.2021.

Thereafter, plea was recorded. The complainant has filed

another application under Section 143A of the N.I. Act

seeking for grant of interim compensation and directing

the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. The

said application came to be allowed vide order da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top