Karnataka High Court
Sri B Lakshmana vs Sri T Mahalingaiah on 29 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7219 OF 2021
BETWEEN
Sri B.Lakshmana,
Late Byrappa,
Aged about 64 years,
R/o No.U150, 2nd Main,
Swathanthranagara,
Near Ganigara Bhavana,
Srirampura, Bengaluru-560021.
...Petitioner
(By Sri V.S.Ravindra Holla, Advocate)
AND
Sri T.Mahalingaiah,
S/o Late Thimmaiah,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o No.39, Veerabhadranagara,
Bage Gowda Layout,
B.S.K. III State, Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru-560050.
Represented by his GPA Holder,
Sri Venkatesh D.,
S/o Devegowda,
49 years, R/o 4A Cross,
Industrial Workers Layout,
Shankaranagara, Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bengaluru-560096.
...Respondent
(By Sri B.N.Suresh Babu, Advocate)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C praying to set aside the impugned order dated
04.09.2021 passed in C.C.No.1563/2019 on the file of the
XXIV Additional Small Causes Judge and XXII ACMM,
Bengaluru with respect to the initiation and registration of
C.Misc. Case against the petitioner for non depositing the
interim compensation within the period as per the order
dated 27.01.2019 on the application filed respondent
under Section 143A of N.I.Act, vide document No.6.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
2. In this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 4.9.2021 passed in C.C.1563/2019 on the file XXIV ASCJ and ACMM, Bengaluru. The facts are that the respondent initiated proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner as the cheque issued by the latter for Rs.15,40,000/- was dishonoured. In the 3 course of the proceedings, the second respondent made an application under section 143A of the Act for a direction to the petitioner to pay compensation equal to 20% of the cheque amount, but the trial court after considering the statement of objections directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the cheque amount within 60 days from the date of that order. The petitioner did not deposit the amount. It appears that the petitioner made an application seeking extension of time to make the deposit and the court allowed the said application and granted extension by another 15 days. Yet the petitioner did not deposit the amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the courts came to be closed because of Covid-19, the petitioner could not make the deposit. On 4.9.2021 the case was posted for further cross- examination of PW1. The complainant was absent on 4 that date. But, the petitioner being the accused was present in the Court Hall. The court noticing the fact that the petitioner had not deposited the amount in accordance with the order dated 27.1.2019, passed an order to register miscellaneous case under section 421 Cr.P.C for recovering the compensation money to be paid in accordance with section 143A of the Act and then posted the case for recording the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. On the same day, the statement was recorded and now the case is posted for defence evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if time is extended, the petitioner will make deposit as per the orders of the trial court. In view of the fact that a miscellaneous case has been registered against him for recovering the compensation amount, the petitioner may be arrested and in that event the petitioner cannot lead defence 5 evidence. Therefore he submits that this court by exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C may extend the time to enable the petitioner to make the deposit.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial court has shown indulgence in favour of the petitioner. If he did not deposit the 10% of the cheque amount as per the orders of the court, the said money can be recovered as arrears of fine in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 143A of the Act. Therefore there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. Sufficient time has already been granted to the petitioner for making the deposit and now there cannot be any further extension of time.
6. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, it is to be stated that maximum time that can be given 6 to an accused in a proceeding under section 138 of the Act is 90 days according to sub-section (3) of section 143A of the Act. In this case it appears that 90 days has already been over since the date of passing of the impugned order. Now proceeding under section 421 Cr.P.C has been initiated. In this regard it is to be stated that even though proceeding under section 421 Cr.P.C is initiated, any amount that will be recovered in the said proceedings in the form of fine is nothing but the compensation amount ordered by the court in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 143A of the Act. In the event the accused is acquitted of the offence under section 138 of the Act, in spite of recovery made according to section 421 Cr.P.C, the money recovered under section 421 Cr.P.C has to be repaid to the accused. Therefore nothing prevents the petitioner even now from making the payment in a proceeding under 7 section 421 Cr.P.C. If he voluntarily deposits the amount in the office of the trial court, the said proceeding may be dropped. This being the position, I am the opinion that the petitioner can be granted further time for making deposit. Therefore giving ten days time to the petitioner from today for depositing the amount in the court below, the petition stands disposed of. If this amount is deposited by the petitioner, the proceedings under section 421 Cr.P.C shall be closed by the court below.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl