Bangalore District Court
H Puttaswamy vs Lavanya R on 4 March, 2024
KABC030799122022
IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 4th day of March 2024
Present:
Present : Smt.Sujata Sidagouda Patil,
B.SC.,LL.B.
XXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
C.C.No. 32625/2022
Complainant : Sri.H.Puttaswamy,
S/o Late Honnaiah,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.8/110, 7th Main Road,
Jabbar Block, Rajamahal
Guttahalli, Bengaluru560 003.
(By P.Sreedhara Advocate )
V/s
Accused : Smt.Lavanya.R
W/o Nanjundaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.1044, 4th Floor,
Tower II, Prestige Garden Bay,
Avalahalli, IVRI Road,
Off Doddaballapur Main Road,
Near CRPF, Yelahanak,
(By M.S.Mohan Advocate )
Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty
Final Order: Accused is Acquitted
Date of judgment : 04.03.2024
JUDGMENT
The complainant filed the complaint under Sec.200 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act (For short N.I.Act). 2
C.C.No.32625/2022
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is as under:
The accused being the owner of the residential site bearing No. 73/57/3 situated at Adde Vishwanathapura Village, Rajanukunte, Bengaluru North and also constructed apartments in the name and style of " THE LAVISH" and accused offered to flat in the 2 nd floor for sum of Rs.30,00,000/. On the oral assurance given by the accused the complainant has paid Rs.5,00,000/ as token advance in two installments by way of cheque for Rs.2,00,000/ on 21.6.2019 and Rs.3,00,000/ by way of cash and accused also promised to execute the sale deed in and handed over the possession by executing necessary documents. But accused has not execute the sale and complainant has made demand to the accused to execute the sale and hand over the possession . But accused has failed to do so , ultimately the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 803635 dt 01.08.2022 for Rs.5,00,000/ drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Yelahanka, Bengaluru . The complainant presented said cheque though its banker and the same returned dishonored for the reason "Drawer Signature Differs". On receipt of said intimation, the complainant got issued legal notice dt.16.08.2022 to pay the due amount. Despite of service of notice, the accused failed to pay the outstanding amount to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint against the accused. Hence, this complaint. 3
C.C.No.32625/2022
3.After filing of the complaint recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.6. The complainant has complied all the statutory requirements under Sec.138 of N.I.Act. On the other hand, accused has not complied with the demand notice issued by the complainant company nor made the payment within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the case is registered against the accused by taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act and summons issued. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the accused appeared through Counsel and enlarged on bail. Plea recorded.
4. Further the copies of the papers were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. Accused pleads not guilty and claims for trial. Subsequently, when the matter was posted for cross of PW 1, the complainant and the accused appeared before the court and filed a Joint Memo. The parties submitted before the court that they agree and abide by the terms of joint memo. Both the side prayed to pass judgment taking into consideration the joint memo filed by the parties.
Heard arguments and perused the material on record.
5. On the basis of the contents of the complaint the following points arise for my consideration: [[
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I.Act as alleged in the complaint ?
4
C.C.No.32625/2022
2. Whether both the complainant and the accused have settled the dispute by way of filing joint memo ?
3. What Order ?
6. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1&2 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS
7.Point No.1&2: The complainant has filed the complaint alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act. After recording the sworn statement and pursuant to issuance of summons, the accused appeared through his counsel and enlarged on bail. Plea substance is readover and explained, accused pleads not guilty and claimed for trial. Sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.6. Subsequently, when the matter was posted for cross of PW 1 both the parties appeared through their respective counsel and filed joint memo on 22.01.2024. Under the joint memo, the matter has been settled between the parties and the accused agreed to pay Rs.5,00,000/ to the complainant towards full and final settlement. Out of said amount, accused paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ to the complainant by way of cash on 22.1.2024 and remaining balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/ paid by the accused by way of cash on 4.3.2024 5 C.C.No.32625/2022 towards full and final settlement. Hence, the complainant has received entire settlement amount.
8. In this case, it is to be considered by the court that whether the mandatory requirement as mentioned u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act has been complied with or not. The cheque issued by the accused is dated 1.08.2022 the cheque was presented for encashment and the endorsements received on 03.08.2022 . That on 16.08.2022 the legal notice is issued through RPAD. The complaint is filed on 27.09.2022. It is evident that the cheque was presented for encashment within the valid time. Notice demanding the cheque amount and filing of the complaint before the court after service of notice are within the period specified. Therefore, from the joint memo it is crystal clear that the accused has not paid the cheque amount and admit legal liability of payment of cheque amount.
9. Upon appreciation of the materials , this court is of the opinion that the accused failed to prove that she has not not issued the cheque for legally enforceable debt. On the contrary, the complainant has proved that the accused issued the cheque in question towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. When the said cheques were presented the same have been dishonored. Hence in this regard a notice has been issued against the accused. Despite issuance of notice, the accused has not paid the cheque 6 C.C.No.32625/2022 amount. Hence, the court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved that the accused committed an offence punishable u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act. Subsequently, both the parties have settled the matter by filing the joint memo. Hence, Point No.1 & 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
10 . Point No.3 : In view of the discussion made supra, the court is of the opinion that the complainant has proved that the accused committed an offence punishable u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act. The joint memo has been filed by the complainant and the accused before this court. Hence, accused admitted guilt. Hence, admitted facts need not be proved. Further both the parties i.e the complainant and the accused have requested to pass the judgment for payment of agreed amount as per the joint memo as compensation to the complainant. The complainant and the accused themselves have come forward with mode of payment of the amount as per the terms of joint memo. The accused has paid entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/ as on22.1.2024 and 4.03.2024. Hence, the complainant has received entire settlement amount as per the terms of joint memo towards full and final settlement and the matter has been settled between the parties. Hence as per the principles discussed in reported decision 2005 (10) SCC 632 (K.J.B.L.Rama Reddy V/s.Annapurna Seeds & Anr) , 7 C.C.No.32625/2022 the accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, in view of this I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting u/s.264 Cr.P.C , the accused persons are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s.138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
The contents of the joint memo is part and parcel of the record.
The bail bond of the accused and that of the surety if any stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her , corrected and signed then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of March 2024).
(SUJATA SIDAGOUDA PATIL) C/c XV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PW 1 : Puttaswamy LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.P1 : Cheque
Ex.P.1(a) : Signatures of the accused
Ex.P.2 : Bank Endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P4&5 : Postal Receipts
Ex.P6 : Reply Notice
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Nil LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE ACCUSED:
Nil (SUJATA SIDAGOUDA PATIL) C/c XV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE. 8 C.C.No.32625/2022