IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100885/2018

BETWEEN:

SMT. ANITA W/O SHIVAJI PATIL

AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O NARAYAN GALLI, KANGRALI K.H.,
TQ AND DIST:BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI. KALLAYYA A VASTRAD

AGE: MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O H. NO.1230/1, GURUWAR PETH,
CHANNAMMA CIRCLE, KITTUR,
TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENT
(SERVED)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C.

SEEKIGN TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2017 PASSED
IN CC NO.837/2014 BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDRE SECTION
138 OF NI ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
 2

ORDER

Heard the petitioner’s counsel. The respondent, in

spite of service of notice, did not choose to appear before

the Court.

2. The petitioner has sough for relief of

quashing the order dated 30.12.2017 passed in CC

No.837/2014 by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,

Dharwad for the offence punishable under Section 138

of NI Act vide Annexure-B.

3. The main contention of the petitioner before

this Court is that he has initiated the proceedings under

Section 138 of NI Act against the respondent herein and

both of them have compromised in terms of compromise

dated 9.3.2016 and the respondent herein had agreed to

pay Rs.65,000/- on or before completion of three

months and if the accused failed to pay the same, the

complainant is entitled to take further steps and

 3

accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six

months. In spite of the said order, the respondent did

not comply the compromise terms and conditions and

thereafter, the trial Court issued NBW against the

accused to enforce the compromise terms and

conditions and the NBW was unserved and ultimately

the trial Court passed an order that the matter is settled

between the parties and in view of the settlement, the

accused was acquitted for the alleged offence under

Section 138 of NI Act and the accused is acquitted and

again by re-opening the disposed of matter, issuing the

NBW against accused is unknown to law, hence, closed

the case as per the order 9.3.2016. Being aggrieved by

the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The main contention of the petitioner is that

in terms of the settlement, the respondent agreed to pay

Rs.65,000/-, in case of default, he has to undergo

simple imprisonment of six months and even though

 4

the Court was pleased to issue NBW, instead of securing

the accused before the Court, closed the case and the

Court below has misunderstood the earlier order passed

by the very same Court and hence, the Court has

committed an error in closing the case.

5. Having heard the petitioner’s counsel,

perusal of the complaint as per Annexure-A and

Annexure-B Order sheet discloses that the matter was

compromised on 9.3.2016 and the respondent was

agreed to pay Rs.65,000/- with a condition that he has

to pay the same on or before completion of three

months, complainant is entitled to take further steps

and the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for

a period of six months. When the compromise terms

and conditions are specific that the accused shall

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six

months, the trial Court ought not to have closed the

case. Further, the order sheet discloses that the

 5

accused is acquitted and again by re-opening the

disposed of matter, issued the NBW against accused is

unknown to law and hence, closed the case. When the

NBW was issued, the Trial Court instead of securing the

accused before the Court, abruptly closed the case, the

Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind. When the

very compromise terms and conditions are specific that

in case of default, he has to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months, the trial Court ought not

to have closed the case. Hence, the impugned order

dated 30.12.2017 passed by the Magistrate is liable to

be quashed as contended by the petitioner’s counsel.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I

pass the following order:

i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 30.12.2017
passed in CC No.837/2014 by the
I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
Dharwad for the offence punishable
 6

under Section 138 of NI Act vide

Annexure-B is hereby quashed.
iii) The Magistrate is directed to proceed
against the respondent herein in
accordance with law in order to give
effect of compromise terms and
conditions as entered between the
parties vide order dated 9.3.2016.

Sd/-
JUDGE

JTR