Karnataka High Court
Rinkudeshpande vs Vijay Kumar Reddy on 28 February, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8216
CRL.P No. 12068 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12068 OF 2023 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. RINKUDESHPANDE,
W/O NILESH R. DESHPANDE,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PEBBLE BAY APARTMENT,
TOWER 4, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
RMV 3RD STAGE, DOLLARS COLONY,
BENGALURU 560094.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKESH B. BHATT., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VIJAY KUMAR REDDY,
S/O R. KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by RESIDING AT No. 404, B BLOCK,
NARAYANAPPA DSR REGENCY, GREEN GLEN LAYOUT,
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH BELLANDUR RING ROAD,
COURT OF BENGALURU 560103.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI PRAKASH V., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.55066/2018 (ANNEXURE-A).
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8216
CRL.P No. 12068 of 2023
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief:
(a) Quash the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Court of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in CC.No.55066/2018 (Annexure-A).
(b) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.
2. The respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which after recording of sworn statement was resulted in C.C.No.55066/2018 before the XIV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
3. In the said matter, a compromise was entered into before the lokadalath, wherein the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Eighty Lakhs Only) to the complainant in installments as stated in the joint memo. In the joint memo, there was a clause incorporated that in the event of the amount not -3- NC: 2024:KHC:8216 CRL.P No. 12068 of 2023 being paid, the complainant will be at liberty to file execution as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, when the petitioner defaulted on the payment, the respondent - complainant moved the Magistrate Court seeking for issuance of Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) as well as Fine Levy Warrant (FLW) in terms of Section 421 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has issued both NBW and FLW against the accused by hand through the concerned jurisdictional Police Station, for production of the accused or recovery of the money. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid relief.
4. Sri. Rakesh B. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter was sought to be re-opened by the complainant after the settlement before the Lokadalath, the Trial Court could not have directly ordered for Non-Bailable warrant to be issued and issued FLW as well, the order passed by the Magistrate issuing NBW is bad in law.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:8216 CRL.P No. 12068 of 2023
5. Learned counsel for respondent however submit that the petitioner having paid partial amount and there being admission made by the petitioner in terms of the joint memo, the balance amount not having been paid, the Magistrate thought it fit to secure the presence of the accused in order to ascertain the payment there of and it is in that background that NBW has been issued and in so far as Fine Levy Warrant is concerned, he submit that in terms of memo filed before the lokadalath, the respondent having a right to initiate the proceedings under Section 421 of Cr.P.C, a FLW has been issued, which is in accordance with the judgment of this Court reported in SOMASHEKARA REDDY VS. G.S. GEETHA1. In that view of the matter, he submits that there is no ground made out in the petition and requires to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent and perused the papers.
1 EQ/NC 2020(3)CivilCC, ILR 2020 KARNATAKA 4699, 2020/KHC/4699 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:8216 CRL.P No. 12068 of 2023
7. It is not in dispute that a joint memo has filed before the Lokadalath and accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,00,000/- out of which the accused has paid a sum of Rs.2,80,00,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and despite repeated request by respondent, the time scheduled has not been adhered to by the accused. In this background, the respondent - complainant was constrained to initiate proceedings under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. seeking for issuance of Fine Levy Warrant. The compromise permitting the complainant to seek for relief under Section 421 of Cr.P.C., the action taken by the respondent - complainant is proper and correct. However, when the matter was taken up before the Magistrate, the Magistrate ought to have issued summons and FLW on the accused instead of doing so, the Magistrate has directly issued NBW as well as FLW. The issuance of NBW at the re-opening stage is not contemplated under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petition would required to be partly allowed striking down the issuance of NBW and pass the following: -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:8216 CRL.P No. 12068 of 2023 ORDER
i) The criminal petition is partly allowed.
ii) The order dated 03.10.2023 passed by XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in C.C.No.55066/2018 at Annexure
-A in so far as issuance of NBW to the accused-
petitioner is quashed. It is made clear that the order regarding issuance of FLW shall continue and the Jurisdictional Police shall execute the same at the earliest.
iii) In the event of the petitioner-accused not appearing before the Magistrate on the date so prescribed then the Magistrate would be free to issue NBW against the accused.
iv) In the judgment relied upon by the counsel for respondent, the Neutral Citation, which has been given by learned counsel Sri. Ravi Prakash V, (2020 KHC 4699), is not in terms of the guidelines, which has been prescribed. Hence, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate to manupatra -7- NC: 2024:KHC:8216 CRL.P No. 12068 of 2023 to follow the guidelines for publication of neutral citation as issued.
Sd/-
JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10