Karnataka High Court
Veeranna S/O Bhimappa Ambiger vs Venkatesh S/O Pandappa Jadav on 4 September, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103181 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102216 OF 2021
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
IN CRL.P.103181 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
VEERANNA S/O BHIMAPPA AMBIGER,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. KUDALASANGAMA, NOW AT: ILKAL,
TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 125.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VENKATESH S/O PANDAPPA JADAV,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
RAKESH HARIHAR
S
HARIHAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
R/O. BALAKUNDI TANDA, TQ. HUNAGUND,
DHARWAD
BENCH
DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 125.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.08.2021 PASSED BY
LOK-ADALATH AND PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC HUNAGUND, IN C.C. NO.148/2021 (OLD C.C.
NO.195/2018) FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
138 OF N.I. ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021
HC-KAR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNAGUND, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P.102216 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
SHRI VENKTESH S/O PANDAPPA JADAV,
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BALAKUNDI TANDA, TQ. HUNAGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 125.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI VEERANNA S/O BHIMAPPA AMBIGER,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. KUDALASANGAM, NOW AT: ILKAL,
TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587 125.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE AN ORDER ON MEMO DATED 31.08.2021 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. HUNGUND, IN (P.C.
NO.04/2018) C.C. NO.148/2021 (C.C. NO.195/2018) FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408
CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. These two petitions arise between the same parties out of the same proceedings and therefore they are heard together and disposed off by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.103181/2025 had initiated proceedings against the respondent therein, before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'NI Act').
4. It is the case of the petitioner that towards repayment of the amount of ₹5,00,000/- which the respondent was due to pay him, the cheque issued by him for a sum of ₹5,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner dated 18.09.2017 drawn on ICICI Bank, Ilkal branch bearing Cheque No.178872, was dishonoured by the drawee Bank and in spite of service of statutory notice on the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR respondent, he had failed to pay the amount covered under the cheque in question and it is under these circumstances, petitioner had filed a private complaint in PCR No.4/2018 and in the said order after taking cognizance of the alleged offence, respondent was being tried before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate for the alleged offence in C.C.No.148/2021.
5. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, an application under Section 147 of NI Act was filed by the parties on 26.04.2021, wherein it was stated that respondent had agreed to pay the amount of ₹2,00,000/- to the petitioner towards full and final settlement of the amount covered under the cheque in question and it was further stated that the said amount shall be paid by respondent on or before 26.07.2021. The trial Court therefore had referred the parties to the Lok Adalath by order dated 26.04.2021. The matter was thereafter called before the Lok Adalath on 14.08.2021. On the same date, the application filed by the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR parties under Section 147 of NI Act, wherein respondent had agreed to pay an amount of ₹2,00,000/- was taken into consideration and the respondent/accused was acquitted in view of respondent agreeing to pay the aforesaid amount. The order dated 14.08.2021 passed by the Lok Adalath reads as under:
"Complainant and counsel have filed application U/Sec.147 of N.I.Act stating the accused has agreed to pay entire amount as per compromise. Hence, they have sought for closing the case in view of accused paying the entire amount. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following...
ORDER The application filed U/Sec.147 of N.I.Act is allowed. Accused is acquitted in view of accused agreeing to pay entire cheque amount."
6. It appears that thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court to take the disposed off case on Board and issue non-bailable warrant against the respondent since he had not paid any amount as agreed and undertaken in the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act. The learned trial Judge by order dated 31.08.2021 had accordingly issued non-bailable warrant to the -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/accused is before this Court in Criminal Petition No.102216/2021. Challenging the order passed by the Lok Adalath on 14.08.2021 acquitting the respondent in view of the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act, petitioner/complainant is before this Court in Criminal Petition No.103181/2025.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that no amount was paid by the respondent/ accused as per the terms of application filed under Section 147 of NI Act, on 26.04.2021. Neither the parties nor their advocates were present before the Lok Adalath on 14.08.2021 and in spite of the same, application under Section 147 of NI Act was considered and respondent was acquitted. He submits that reading of the order of acquittal itself would go to show that only based on the undertaking given by the respondent to pay an amount of ₹2,00,000/-, he has been acquitted. He submits that respondent taking the advantage of the order dated 14.08.2021 passed by the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR Lok Adalath has thereafter not paid any amount and virtually he has committed fraud on the Court and accordingly prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused submits that the amount of ₹2,00,000/- is already paid in cash to the petitioner/ complainant. In spite of the same, he has filed an application before the learned Magistrate to issue non- bailable warrant against the respondent/accused in a disposed off case, which was not permissible. He submits that once the matter is disposed off before the Lok Adalath, learned Magistrate had no power to issue non-bailable warrant against the respondent/accused. Accordingly, he prays to allow Criminal Petition No.102216/2021 and dismiss Criminal Petition No.103181/2025. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand Garg Vs.Harpal Singh & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No.8050/2025, disposed off on 11.08.2025. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR
9. The application filed by the parties before the trial Court under Section 147 of NI Act on 26.04.2021 reads as follows:
APPLICATION U/S 147 OF NI ACT "EzÀgÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢ü ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ:£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ §gÀPÉÆAqÀ «£ÀAw Cfð K£ÉÃAzÀgÉ-
¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ NI Act PÀ®A. 138 gÀr ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ gÁf DUÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ PÀ®A. EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢ü ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀ£ÄÀ ¥ÀjavÀgÄÀ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »ÃUÁV ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀ£À ªÀÄzsÀå zÉéñÀ ¨sÁªÀ£É ¨É¼ÉAiÀĨÁgÀzÀÄ C£ÀÄß EgÁzɬÄAzÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ü ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ gÁf DVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¸ÀzÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ZÉPï ºÀt 5,00,000=00 UÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ gÀÆ:2,00,000=00UÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀ£ÄÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢üUÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä M¦àPÆ É ArzÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ ¦AiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄÄ PÀ§Æ® ªÀ, vÀAiÀiÁgÀ EgÀÄvÁÛ£É. DzÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ ºÀtzÀ CqÀZÀ£É EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆævÀ£ÄÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ EA¢¤AzÀ CAzÀgÉ 26-04-2021 jAzÀ 26-07-2021 gÀ M¼ÀUÁV ¸ÀzÀgÀ gÀÆ:2,00,000=00UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä M¦àPÆ É ArgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
PÁgÀt ªÉÄÃgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ gÁf DVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÁ §gÀPÆ É AqÀ «£ÀAw Cfð."
-9-NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR
10. It appears that, upon receipt of the said application, learned Magistrate vide order dated 26.04.2021 had directed the matter to be called before the Lok Adalath whenever fixed by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The Order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate reads as follows:
"Complainant and accused present. Complainant has filed application u/s 147 of NI Act to accept the compromise. Complainant has stated he has agreed to the terms of the application. Compounding application is taken on record.
Call before lok adalath whenver fixed by KLSA."
11. Thereafter on 14.08.2021, the matter was listed before the Lok Adalath and it appears that on the said date there was no representation on behalf of the parties before the Lok Adalath. Neither the parties nor their learned advocates had appeared before the Lok Adalath. However, the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act was considered by the Lok Adalath and Order dated 14.08.2021 which is quoted in the preceding paragraph was passed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR
12. Perusal of the said Order would go to show that only for the reason that respondent/accused had agreed to pay amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner under the application filed by the parties under Section 147 of NI Act, the Lok Adalath had acquitted the respondent, though there was no material to show the agreed amount was paid. Though the respondent/accused had only agreed to pay ₹2,00,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of the amount of ₹5,00,000/- covered under the cheque in question, the Lok Adalath has observed that respondent/accused had agreed to pay entire cheque amount, which itself would go to show that there was no application of mind by the Lok Adalath while the Order dated 14.08.2021 which is impugned in Criminal Petition No.103181/2025 was passed.
13. Alleging that respondent/accused had not paid any amount to the petitioner after the application under Section 147 of NI Act was filed, wherein respondent/ accused had agreed to pay the amount of ₹2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the amount covered
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR under the cheque in question within the time mentioned in the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act, the petitioner had filed application before the learned Magistrate to advance the disposed of case and issue non-bailable warrant to the respondent. The learned Magistrate accordingly on 31.08.2021, had issued non-bailable warrant to the respondent and after the non-bailable warrant was executed against the respondent/ accused, he was produced before the trial Court on 17.11.2021 and on the said date he had executed personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- and also furnished surety to the likesum before the trial Court and the matter was adjourned on 18.11.2021.
14. On 18.11.2021, the surety of the respondent/accused had produced RTC extract and Aadhar card and after perusal of the same, the surety was accepted by the trial Court. The order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate reads as follows:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR "Surety by name Sri.Krishnappa Chatrappa Karbari, Age. 69 years Resident of Balakundi is present and ready to stand as surety to Accused. He has produced RTC extract and Adhar card. Enquired surety, surety accepted.
Office to take bonds.
Accused prays two months time to pay the amount as mentioned in the compromise application. Time is given. It is made clear that in the event of accused not paying the amount on or before 18.01.2022 the complainant can proceed as per law against the accused in respect of award of Lok Adalath."
15. From a reading of the aforesaid order, it is very clear that on 18.11.2021, the respondent/accused who had appeared before the trial Court had prayed for granting 2 months time to pay the amount as mentioned in the compromise application. In spite of such a submission made by him before the trial Court, he has now taken contention before this Court that entire amount as agreed in the compromise application filed under Section 147 of NI Act, was paid to the petitioner. Therefore, it is apparent that respondent/accused who has not paid any amount to the petitioner pursuant to the compromise application filed under Section 147 of NI Act before the trial Court, taking advantage of the order dated 14.08.2021 passed by the Lok
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR Adalath, in the absence of the parties and their learned advocates, has tried to play fraud on the Court as well as the petitioner.
16. Any attempt by a person to make unlawful gain at the cost of other parties can be considered as a fraudulent act within the meaning of Section 25 of IPC. Section 25 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:
"25. "Fraudulently".--
A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise."
17. The word 'fraud' is defined under Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which reads as follows:
"17. 'Fraud' defined.--
'Fraud' means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent', with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:--(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2)the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3)a promise made without any intention of performing it;
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR (4)any other act fitted to deceive;
(5)any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
Explanation.--Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speaks, or unless his silence, is, in itself, equivalent to speech."
18. The act committed by the respondent/accused clearly amounts to fraud, and the intention of the respondent was only to make unlawful gain and defraud the petitioner/complainant. It is trite that fraud unravels everything and if it is found that if any order or decree is obtained by playing fraud, then such orders needs to be revived and the proceedings need to be restored and continued from the stage in which the said order was passed. No Court can allow a party to take advantage of an order which was obtained by fraud.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR reported in (2000)3 SCC 581 has reiterated that fraud unravels everything and has observed as follows:
"3. "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything" (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA)] )."
20. In the case of Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) Vs. Shaw Bros. reported in (1992) 1 SCC 534, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury........"
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR
21. In the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry Vs. Govt. of A.P. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed: "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."
22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment, decree or order--by the first court or by the final court--has to be treated as nullity by every court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.
23. ***
24. In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p. 644, explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment would be res judicata and not impeachable from within, it might be impeachable from without. In other words, though it is not permissible to show that the court was "mistaken", it might be shown that it was "misled". There is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery. The clear implication of the distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment cannot be brought on the ground that it has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the decision was one which should not have been rendered, but it can be set aside, if the court was imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment.
25. It has been said : fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent)."
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR
22. In the present case, at the stage of recording of the evidence of complainant(PW1), the parties had filed application before the trial Court under Section 147 of NI Act, wherein it was agreed that respondent/accused was to pay a sum of ₹2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the amount covered under the cheque in question and in the agreement, it was specifically mentioned that agreed amount of ₹2,00,000/- shall be paid by the respondent/accused on or before 26.07.2021. There is also a mention in the application to take up the application for consideration after three months. However, after the application dated 26.04.2021 was taken on record the learned Magistrate had directed the matter to be called before the Lok Adalath. When the matter was listed before the Lok Adalath subsequently on 14.08.2021, though there was no representation on behalf of the parties, the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act was considered and the respondent/accused was acquitted.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR
23. It is relevant to note here that though in the order dated 14.08.2021 originally it was mentioned that respondent/ accused had paid the amount to the petitioner, subsequently, necessary corrections were carried out in the said order and it is mentioned that respondent/accused had agreed to pay the amount to the petitioner/complainant. The respondent/accused has failed to produce any material either before the trial Court or before this Court to show that he had paid the aforesaid amount of ₹2,00,000/- to the petitioner in terms of his undertaking in the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act. On the other hand, after he was produced before the trial Court, on 18.11.2021, he had sought for two months time to pay the amount as mentioned in the compromise application. In A.V.Papayya Sastry's case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that order or decree obtained by playing fraud can be challenged in any Court at any stage, any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR
24. The judgment in the case of Gyan Chand Garg (supra) was rendered in a case where the parties had entered into settlement, and in terms of the settlement, agreed amount was paid by the accused under 2 demand drafts, along with 3 cheques. In the case on hand, no amount was paid to the petitioner/complainant nor was any instrument issued by respondent/complainant to the petitioner towards payment of the agreed amount. On the other hand, in the application, it is mentioned that within an outer limit mentioned in the application, the agreed amount shall be paid. It is only based on such a statement in the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act, the Lok Adalath has allowed the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act and has acquitted respondent/accused by order dated 14.08.2021. As on the date of the said order the time for payment mentioned in the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act had already expired and without even verifying whether the amount mentioned in the application has been paid within the time mentioned in the application,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR the order dated 14.08.2021 was passed. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Gyan Chand Gard (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
25. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order dated 14.08.2021 passed in C.C.148/2021 by the Lok Adalath needs to be quashed to secure ends of justice, the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. needs to be exercised, failing which, justice would be denied to the complainant, who was diligently prosecuting his complaint and on the other hand, the respondent/accused, taking advantage of the order dated 14.08.2021 passed by the Lok Adalath, has tried to play fraud on the Court as well as on the petitioner/complainant. In spite of the petitioner undertaking before the Magistrate on 18.11.2021 to pay the amount as mentioned in compromise application he has contended before this Court that he has already made the payment and therefore learned Magistrate was not justified in issuing NBW against him. This conduct of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR respondent/accused in trying to blow hot and cold needs to be deprecated and his petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. Under the circumstances, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition No.103181/2025 is allowed and the order dated 14.08.2021 passed in C.C.No.148/2021 by the Lok Adalath allowing the application filed under Section 147 of NI Act and consequently acquitting the respondent/accused is set aside and the complaint is restored to file, with a direction to the learned Magistrate to proceed further against the respondent/accused in accordance with law.
ii. Consequently, Criminal Petition
No.102216/2021 filed by the
respondent/accused is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- which shall be paid by him
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11408 CRL.P No. 103181 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 102216 of 2021 HC-KAR to the petitioner/complainant before the trial Court.
iii. Since the parties are represented by their learned advocates, the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 22.09.2025, without waiting for further notice from the trial Court in C.C.No.148/2021 (Old No.195/2018).
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 90