Karnataka High Court
Srinivas M vs Mr. K L Jain on 22 June, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.827 OF 2009
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.558 OF 2008
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.827 OF 2009
BETWEEN :
Mr. M.Srinivas,
Hindu, Major,
Son of Mr.Guruvaiah,
No.20, H.No.1-8-73,
Paigah Colony,
S.P.Road,
Secunderabad - 3. ...PETITIONER
( By Shri. A. Feroze Nizam, Advocate )
AND :
Mr.K.L.Jain,
Hindu, Major,
Son of Late C.M.Chopra,
No.34/8, Akkithimanahalli,
Shantinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027. ...RESPONDENT
2
( By Shri. Venkatesh R Bhagat, Advocate )
This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read
with 401 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the advocate for the
petitioner praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set
aside the order of conviction in judgment dated 17.3.2008
passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore in C.C.No.14357/2004 and the judgment passed by
the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Bangalore in Criminal
Appeal No.323/2008 dated 16.09.2009.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.558 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
Sri. K.L.Jain,
Son of Late C.M.Chopra,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at C/o. No.34/8,
Akkithiimanahalli,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Venkatesh R.Bhagat, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. Srinivas.M,
Son of Sri. Guruvaiah,
Major,
Residing at Plot No.20,
H.No.1-8-73, Paigah Colony,
Behind Anand Theatre,
S.P.Road, Secunderabd-3,
Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. A. Feroze Nizam, Advocate)
3
This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read
with 401 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the advocate for the
petitioner, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
modify the judgment and order dted 17.3.2008 passed by the
XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in
C.C.No.14357/2004 in so far as awarding a meagre
compensation to the complainant/petitioner and to enhance the
compensation to the tune double the cheque amount to cover
the loss caused to the complainant.
These Criminal Revision Petitions coming on for Orders,
this day, the court made the followng:
ORDER
The parties and their counsel are present before the Court and have filed a compromise petition under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as follows:
"COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE N.I. ACT.
The petitioner and the respondent in the above petition file this Compromise Petition and humbly pray this Hon'ble Court to dispose the matter in terms of the compromise petition.
1. The above criminal revision petition arises out of order passed in Criminal Appeal No.323/2008 passed by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-1), Bangalore who confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.14357/2004 to pay a Rs. 37,55,000/- (Rupees 4 Thrity Seven Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months.
2. The said criminal case had arisen out of dishonour of cheque issued by the Petitioner/accused in favour of the respondent/ complainant, in connection with the financial dealings between the parties along with Mr. Pavan Kanuga, Mr. Lalith Kumar Singi, Chandesh Rawal, Rajesh Jain, Kamal Jain and they had authorized the respondent/complainant to receive payment on behalf of all from the petitioner/accused.
3. This Hon'ble Court has granted stay on condition of deposit of Rs.8,90,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Ninety thousands only) and admitted the above petition.
4. It is submitted that during the interim period, the parties came to an understanding and the parties had enter into an Agreement of sale dated 10.12.2010 in respect of the property bearing No.32/A, situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, LB Nagar Municipality R.R.District, measuring of 473.25 Sq. yards of 395.63 square meters out of 1046.50 sq yards and wherein the petitioner/accused has agreed to sell his property to the respondent/complainant and the conviction amount was recorded as advance amount.
5. Due to some constraints, the said sale transaction as agreed upon could not take place, further negotiation between the parties by intervention of well-wishers has resulted I the following understandings:5
a. It is submitted that the parties have come to an settlement and the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) to the respondent as full and final settlement towards all his claims in respect of the subject cheque No.136323 dated 28.2.2004 and has this day paid a sum of Rs.21,10,000/- (Rupees Twenty One lakhs Ten thousand only) to the respondent/complainant in full and final settlement of all his claims in the following manner:
i) by way of Demand Draft bearing No.246338 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only) drawn on the Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, Secunderabad dated 20.06.2012 drawn in favour of the Complainant (K.L.Jain).
ii) By way of Demand Draft bearing No.246339 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) drawn on the Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, Secunderabad dated 20.06.2012 drawn in favour of the complainant (K.L.Jain).
iii) By way of Demand Draft bearing No.246340 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) drawn on the Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, Secunderabad dated 20.06.2012 drawn in favour of the Complainant (K.L.Jain).
iv) By way of Demand Draft bearing No.246341 for a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ten Thousand only) drawn on the Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, Secunderabad dated 20.06.2012 drawn in 6 favour of the complainant (K.L.Jain), the receipt of which is admitted and acknowledged by the respondent/complainant.
b. Further, for the remaining balance amount of Rs.8,90,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Thousand only) , the petitioner has deposited a likesum amount before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by the Petitioner as per the order of this Hon'ble Court for conditional stay and hence, it is hereby prayed to this Hon'ble Court be pleasaed to direc the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore to release the amount of Rs.8,90,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Thousand only) in favour of the respondent.
c. The Agreement of Sale dated 10.12.2010 relating to the aforesaid property belonging to petitioner is treated as cancelled / terminated and the respondent / complainant shall not file any case (Civil / Criminal ) in respect of the Agreement of Sale dated 10.12.2010 executed between the parties and the amount of advance notionally trated is also cancelled. The original Agreement of Sale dated 10.12.2010 is in the custody of the respondent and he has assured that the same will be handed over to the petitioner within one week from this day.
7. The respondent / complainant has agreed to compounding all his claims to the extent of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) as against Rs.37,55,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand only) imposed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
78. The complainant submits that he has got no further claims in respect of the transaction between the respondent and the petitioner. Further the respondent / complainant assues that he will not file any other case (both civil and criminal) pertaining to the transaction between him and the accused in respect of the subject cheque No.136323 dated 28.02.2004
9. The respondent agrees that no other payment would be insisted upon by him against the petitioner in respect of the subject cheque bearing No. (No. 136323 dated 28.02.2004) in this case.
10. The PARTIES hereby agree that all accounts between the PARTIES herein have been fully and finally settled.
WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed by this Hon'ble Court to dispose off the matter on the terms of this Compromise Petition in the interest of justice and equity, and acquit the petitioner and Criminal Revision Petition No.558/2008 may kindly be dismissed. "
2. The petition is allowed in terms thereof. Accordingly, the judgement of the Court below is set aside and modified in view of the parties having compounded the matter.8
3. Consequently, the connected petition Criminal Revision Petition No.588 of 2008 stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn