Karnataka High Court
Mr P M Ganapathy vs Mr Ajay C Mehta Huf on 8 December, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7792 OF 2022
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7412 OF 2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7678 OF 2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7966 OF 2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8345 OF 2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7792 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MR. P.M. GANAPATHY
S/O LATE P.M. MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
POST BOX NO. 10,
DEVANOOR VILALGE AND POST
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT 571219 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SARAVANAN G , ADVOCATE)
AND
C.V. MEHTA HUF
REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTHA
MR. CHANDRAKANTH V. MEHTA
S/O VALJEE S. MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT NO. 81, 6TH CROSS
B STREET, A.R. EXTENSION
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU 560009 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GIRISH D S, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF FINE
LEVY WARRANT DATED 14.07.2022 AND ALL OTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.19328/2016 ON THE FILE OF XXI
C.M.M., BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7412 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MR. P.M. GANAPATHY
S/O LATE P.M. MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
POST BOX NO. 10,
DEVANOOR VILALGE AND POST
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT 571219 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SARAVANAN G , ADVOCATE)
AND
MR AJAY C MEHTA HUF
REPRESENTED BY ITS KARTHA
MR AJAY C MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAKANTH V MEHTA
RESIDING AT NO 81 6TH CROSS
B STREET A R EXTENSION
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU 560009 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GIRISH D S, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF FINE
LEVY WARRANT DATED 14.07.2022 AND ALL OTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20264/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE XXI CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE.
3
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7678 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MR. P.M. GANAPATHY
S/O LATE P.M. MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
POST BOX NO. 10,
DEVANOOR VILALGE AND POST
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT 571219 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SARAVANAN G , ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI AMBE FILMS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR CHANDRAKANTH V MEHTA
S/O VALJEE S MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.81 6TH CROSS
B STREET
A R EXTENSION
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560009. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GIRISH D S, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF FINE
LEVY WARRANT DATED 14.07.2022 AND ALL OTHER QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF FINE LEVY WARRANT DATED
14.07.2022 AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.19324/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI CMM,
BANGALORE.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7966 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MR. P.M. GANAPATHY
S/O LATE P.M. MADAIAH
4
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
POST BOX NO. 10,
DEVANOOR VILALGE AND POST
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT 571219 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SARAVANAN G , ADVOCATE)
AND
MR CHANDRAKANTH V MEHTA
S/O VELJEE S MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/A NO.81, 6TH CROSS
B STREET
A R EXTENSION
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560009 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GIRISH D S, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF FINE
LEVY WARRANT DATED 14.07.2022 AND ALL OTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.CNO.23064/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI
CMM, BANGALORE.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8345 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MR.P.M.GANAPATHY
S/O LATE P.M. MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
POST BOX NO.10,
DEVANOOR VILLAGE AND PSOT
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT 571219 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SARAVANAN G , ADVOCATE)
AND
5
MR.AJAY C MEHTA HUF
REPRESENTED BY IT SKARTHA
MR. AJAY C. MEHTA
S/O CHANDRAKANTH V. MEHTA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO. 81, 6TH CROSS
B STREET,
A.R. EXTENSION
GANDHINAGA R
BENGALURU 560009 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GIRISH D S, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF FINE
LEVY WARRANT DATED 14.07.2022 AND ALL OTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.18966/2016 ON THE FILE OF XXI
CMM, BANGALORE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions are filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings and Fine Levy Warrant (FLW) issued by the Magistrate in respect of C.C.Nos.19328/2016, 20264/2016, 19324/2016, 23064/2016 and 18966/2016 on the file of XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
6
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of N.I. Act and the petitioner in these cases is the accused. After appearance of the petitioner-accused before the Court, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath and they settled their dispute by filing the Joint Memo on 04.01.2018 and as per the terms of the compromise, the petitioner is required to pay the amount agreed by him to the respondent within the prescribed time. But the petitioner did not pay the said amount to the respondent-complainant as per the terms of the settlement. Therefore, the respondent-complainant moved an application before the Magistrate and reopened the case and got issued FLW against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by challenging the order of issuing FLW in the very same cases. 7
4. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the records, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is an accused in all the cases filed a complaint by the different respondents before the Magistrate and it is also an admitted fact that the matter was settled between the parties by filing compromise application under Section 147 of the N.I. Act before the Lok Adalath and accordingly, Lok Adalath settled matter and the cases were disposed of as per the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties in the application. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is said to be not paid the amount to the respondents as per the terms of the compromise held in the Lok Adalath. It is seen from the records that the respondents reopened the criminal case and got issued the FLW. This Court in the reported judgment in the case of Ms. Shally M. Peter vs. M/s. Banyan Projects India Pvt. Ltd. in Crl.P.No.3157 OF 2020 dated 20.09.2021 has held that once the case is closed before the Lok Adalath and an award has been passed by the Lok Adalath, 8 it becomes executable decree and recourse is available to the parties to go for filing in execution of the decree by filing the miscellaneous recovery case to recover the amount as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C. as revenue or recover as fine under Section 431 of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, once the case was ended in settlement and the matter was disposed of through Lok Adalath, the Magistrate become functus officio and he cannot reopen the very same case except for any clerical corrections as per Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in my view, the order passed by the Magistrate by reopening the case and issuing FLW for recovering the amount is erroneous and not in accordance with law. Therefore, the order of the Magistrate in all these cases issuing FLW against the petitioner-accused deserves to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed. The order of issuing FLW against this petitioner in these cases in C.C.Nos.19328/2016, 20264/2016, 9 19324/2016, 23064/2016 and 18966/2016 are hereby set aside and the FLWs are cancelled.
Liberty granted to the respondent to file Miscellaneous petition before the Magistrate for recovery of the amount as settled in the Lok Adalath by filing the petition under Section 421 / 431 of Cr.P.C.
6. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed to pass an order in accordance with law in the execution petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB