CRL.P.No.55_57/2006
IN THE HIGH coum' on KARNATAKA AT_BAh£CsA1;;:()_ iu¥iE:.:"'
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY on MARC_H:"2:()G8.:'~ A O A
BEFORE . V A . A
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE I(1}'VBAi4iA.KTHA'iIAfFSA1;:flT"vA "
CRIMIN L P
BETWEEN:
SVIJAYAKIJMAR
s/ovswmy A
AGED Aaoufif £32 YE.-_'F\S D - _
R/AT NO 14, 333;: BUILDING
2"» MAIN.3§*D QROSS.' _
GORAGUNFAEALYA,
YESHWANTi!A:E{lJR, 3 A ~
BAvNGALQl'E:E-56€}"O2'2._"- PE'I'l'I'IONER
(By s:i.1§=R RAD, ADV.)
AND:
VASANPHA KU:'ffsR
« _ D10 GURAPPA SI-lE'I"l"Y
" -AGED' ABOUT 48 was
RIATVNG 217.; 'I'.C.NAGAR
= A nu' MAiN.'~LAIGGERE
BANGALQRE-560 073. RESPONDENT
. D A ‘ ‘(By S1-LP VVLALOKESHAPPA, ADV.)
_ V “THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SA82 CR.P.C- BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
‘ _T’HE*~–PE’I’l’I’!ONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’_BLE COURT MAY BE
~ ‘«««-‘PLEASED TO QUASH /SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DT.6.7.06 ON !.A.NO.5
* PASSED IN CRL..A.NO.559/04 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SJ.. FTC-X,
” B’LORE’. CITY, ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION AND RJRTHER DIRECT
O. _f”l’l-IE APPELLATE counvr To m.1.ow THE PETR. T0. LEAD EVIDENCE
ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES AS STATED IN I.A.NO.5.
CRL. 2006
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION comma on FOR ApMiesto’tt;”-THIS
DAY, THE comm’ MADE THE FOLLOWING:- .1 4 ~ ” * V
The petitioner] appellant in _lllo.559}l:”2′{ll)¢t hen
the file of Fast Track Court
Court, praying for quashing O(5.G?’..?t0EO6. rejecting
the application filed
3. appellant submits that
on 23.0’i”,2094 ‘ttetttte Appellate Court, an application for
compounding eeehee 320(6) of Cr.P.C.. mad with
Secti9t§t”1=%7 oi’ thenegettahte Instruments Act was filed with a
dt;;t’tetl:V§Z3_.O7.2004. But when the case was called again. the
appear and therefole, compromise petition
‘ _ was not by the Appellate Court. Thetefote. the appellant
under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., seeking
petmieeion to lead evidence on the compromise petition. The First
tfippellate Court. after hearing arguments. rejected the same.
M t Therefore. the petitionerlappellantlasecused is before this Court.
\,\.,
CRL.P.No.5l65’7/2006
4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subniitlsgthat in
‘.5
pursuance of the compromise. a sum of
towards full and final settlement of the
and an opportunity should have
prove the compromise and payment of’Rst’25.00:0f?-ti.’ 1 l
5. No doubt Section 391 empowers
the Appellate Court if it thinks
neoessauy or it dmtit Magistrate. In the
instant case, Seetion 391 of Cr..P.C-., lbr
the puljtoseiof compromise petition that
was by lfefom the Appellate Couxt.
6. Invnzyh evidence on the alleged compromise
» yjaspynot permissible under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. The Trial
on of dishonouring of a cheque for Rs.1.40.000[-.
for the offence under Section 138 of the
~V Iiismiments Act and sentenced the accused to pay fine
l~?s,:1.?lS,0OO’/–. in default in payment of fine. the accused shall
8.! for three months.
cRLP.No.5s57/2005
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of
the accused preferxed appeal before the First
complainant was not pnesent ‘1 V’:«for7.___
compounding was filed. The foot
the compromise petition. If to
complainant, it would bet’ to
deduct the same as against the ii is admitted by the
complainant cppellantlaccused to
prove the Court. Under such
the Fast Track Court was
juatifiediiti filed by the appellant under
Section 39 1″ic£_VC:r.i5;’c.”” t i
it M p A or infirmity in the impugned older.
~. the petition fails and the some is hemby
.vdismiss°*3′
Sdl-‘
V V V p . b-:uiv* -Judge