Advocates:
S. N. BHATP. NARASIMHAN

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 442 of 2008

PETITIONER:

R. Rajeshwari

RESPONDENT:

H.N. Jagadish

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/03/2008

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3213 of 2006)

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, vis-‘-vis Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is

involved in this appeal which arises out of judgments and orders dated

5.9.2005 and 27.1.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka.

3. The aforementioned orders were passed in the following factual

matrix :

4. Appellant filed a complaint petition against the respondent herein,

inter alia, alleging that he had advanced a sum of Rs.4,35,000/-. For the

purpose of repayment therefor, five cheques were issued. Three cheques

were honoured but two were dishonoured. The subject matter of the

complaint petition was a cheque issued by the respondent for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- which was presented to the bank on 15.9.1996. Appellant was

informed in regard to the dishonour of the cheque on 28.9.1996.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by a judgment and order dated

1.6.2000, found the respondent guilty for commission of an offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a

fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one

month. It was directed that out of the said amount of compensation, a sum

of Rs.1,75,000/- may be paid to the appellant herein.

5. An appeal was preferred thereagainst and by a judgment and order

dated 14.2.2003, the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore

City dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent herein, inter

alia, holding :

"I have perused the entire order of the trial Court.

That the trial Court after considering all the

evidence and material placed on record has rightly

convicted the accused/appellant. The accused/

appellant has not made out any case, so as to

interfere with the order of the trial Court. The

order of the trial Court is neither capricious nor

mala fide. So, I feel it is not necessary to interfere

with the order of the trial Court. The trial Court

order deserves to be confirmed. In view of all the

above said discussion, I answer the point No.1 in

the negative."

6. A Criminal Revision was filed thereagainst by the respondent before

the High Court. It appears that counsel for the parties expressed their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

intention to settle the matter. On a prayer made in that behalf, the Revision

Application was adjourned.

7. The parties allegedly entered into a compromise. A compromise

petition was filed in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

the terms whereof are :

"1. With intravension of well wishers and

friends the parties to the above case, have

decided to settle their difference amicably.

2. The petitioner agreed to pay the cheque

amount sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one

lakh only) accordingly the petitioner today is

paying sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Five Thousand only) in addition to the

amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy

Five Thousand only) already deposited in

the above case in compliance of the interim

order.

3. The respondent has agreed not to claim any

other amount as determined by the court

below and also withdraw his contention and

the charges made against the petitioner

before the trial court and has no objection to

whatsoever to acquit the alleged offences.

4. The respondent further agreed that he will

not making above case against the petitioner

in any other case.

5. The petitioner and respondent set there

hands to sought their difference amicabl