1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.434/2022 C/W. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.438/2022 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.434/2022: BETWEEN: MR. LAGADAPATI MALYADRI, S/O MR. LAKSHMI NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RA/T NO.2, INDIRA STREET, SUBBAYANAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 033. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. EUGENE PRABHU BARRAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M. PRINCE PAUL RAJ, S/O MARIA PITCHAI MUTHU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 2. SMT. S. VIDYA, W/O SRI. M.PRINCE PUAL RAJ, D/O SAKTHIDHARAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.52, 3RD CROSS, KSFC LAYOUT, ST. THOMAS, TOWN POST, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560 084. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR K.N., ADVOCATE) 2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2019 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH73) IN CRL.A.NO.25009/2020 AND FURTHER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2021 BY WAY OF ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED. IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.438/2022: BETWEEN: MR. LAGADAPATI MALYADRI, S/O MR. LAKSHMI NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, INDIRA STREET, SUBBAYANAPALYA BENGALURU-560 033. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. EUGENE PRABHU BARRAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S. VIDYA, W/O SRI. M. PRINCE PAUL RAJ, D/O SAKTHIDHARAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 2. SRI. M. PRINCE PAUL RAJ, S/O MARIA PITCHAI MUTHU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.52, 3RD CROSS, KSFC LAYOUT, ST.THOMAS, TOWN POST, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560 084. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR K.N., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE 3 JUDGMENT OR ORDER DATED 02.11.2019 PASSED BY THE XXXIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.53283/2017 AND FURTHER TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT (CCH-73) AT BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.25008/2020 BY WAY OF ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED. THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.02.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CAV ORDER These two revision petitions are filed challenging the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’ for short) and sentencing to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and also invoking Section 357 of Cr.P.C. directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,56,000/- in each case to the complainant vide order dated 02.11.2019 and also the order passed in Crl.A.No.25009/2020 and Crl.A.No.25008/2020 confirming the distinct order. The parties are one and the same and hence taken up both the matters together for consideration. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the complainants in C.C.No.51715/2017 and C.C.No.53283/2017 is that the complainants agreed to purchase the property bearing No.30 measuring 40 ft. x 60 ft. for sale consideration of Rs.92,40,000/- 4 and accordingly entered into a sale agreement dated 10.12.2015 and the complainants paid the advance amount of Rs.45,00,000/- to the accused on different dates. It is also the case of the complainants that the land has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout and as such the complainants could not get the loan from the bank. In the meantime, the accused caused legal notice terminating the sale agreement. In view of the same, the matter was settled between the parties amicably and they entered into a settlement deed dated 15.09.2016 and the accused made the part payment and also promised to repay the said amount and issued cheques. The complainants presented the cheques, which had been issued by the accused and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient”. Hence, legal notice was issued and the accused did not comply and hence complaint was filed separately and in both the cases, the accused persons were secured and they did not pleaded guilty and hence trial was conducted. The complainants in both the cases examined themselves as P.W.1 and got marked the documents in exhibit ‘P’ series and the accused did not choose to lead any defence 5 evidence. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted the accused in both the cases. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, appeals were filed in Crl.A.No.25009/2020 and Crl.A.No.25008/2020 and the Appellate Court having re-assessed the material on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and hence these two revision petitions are filed before this Court. 4. The common grounds have been urged in both the revision petitions contending that there are suppression of material facts. In the entire case, nowhere it was stated that the disputed cheque at Ex.P.1 is issued by which accused and the signature in the said cheque belongs to accused No.1 or accused No.2. At the time of marking of the documents, it was marked only as “signature of the accused”. When there are two accused in the case and only one cheque and it contains one signature, it is very important to mark the signature belongs to which accused and then only the Trial Court can come to the conclusion that which of the accused is necessary and which of the accused is not necessary to the said case. P.W.1 in her cross- examination states that she do not know who has signed the 6 cheque and further the witness said that accused No.1 may have issued the cheque and her husband collected the cheque from the accused. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases is that the Trial Court ought not to have initiated the proceedings against both the accused since cheque was issued by one of the accused. The learned counsel contend that joint complaint is filed and the same is not maintainable and both the Courts failed to consider the said fact into consideration that cheque was issued by one accused and not both the accused and hence the very complaint itself is not maintainable. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of NARAYANASWAMI AND OTHERS v. EGAPPA REDDI AND OTHERS reported in CDJ 1962 MHC 174 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.2, wherein discussion was made with regard to the initiation of joint complaint. It is held therein that under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. for each distinct offence of which any person is accused, there should be a 7 separate charge and the exceptions are contained in the subsequent sections. There is no provision in the said section dealing with joinder of charges authorizing two or more complainants to file a single complaint. If the authors of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplated such filing of joint complaints, they would have clearly made provision for them corresponding to Order 1 Rule 1 of CPC providing for joinder of plaintiffs in civil suits. On the other hand, the provisions like Section 247 of Cr.P.C. in summons case and Section 259 of Cr.P.C in warrant case as to the powers of the Court to dismiss the complaint in the absence of the complainant clearly indicate that a complaint could be filed by only one person. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that joint complaint is not maintainable. 7. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No.4843/2018 dated 15.02.2023, wherein in paragraph No.11 it is discussed with regard to paragraph No.2 of the privy council in the case of Sashadhar Acharjya v. Sir Charles Tegart reported in 1931 SCC Online Cal 34, and in the case of Parijanashram 8 Swamiji, wherein also it is held that joint complaint is not envisaged in the Cr.P.C. 8. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of PARIJANASHRAM SWAMIJI v. KAILAJE reported in ILR 1986 KAR 417 and brought to the notice of this Court the question which was framed whether joint complaint is envisaged under the Cr.P.C., wherein discussion was made with regard to Sections 233 and 259 of Cr.P.C. and held that joint complaint is not maintainable. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of MANZOOR AHMAD SOFI v. JAMEEL AHMAD BHAT AND ANOTHER passed in Crl.Misc.No.716/2020 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.11, wherein discussion was made with regard to the case of Mohammad Shafi Mir v. Haji Bashir Ahmad Dar and another passed in CRMC No.118/2018 decided on 01.04.2021, wherein it is held that a joint complaint by two or more persons against the accused is not maintainable. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.12. In paragraph No.15, it is held that each of 9 these two persons had a separate cause of action against the petitioner that arose in their favour upon dishonour of these cheques and the failure of the petitioner to discharge the liability despite service of demand notice. A joint complaint by the respondents, therefore, is otherwise not maintainable against the petitioner. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that complaint is filed by the husband and wife and both are parties to the sale agreement as well as the memorandum of settlement, which are marked as Exs.P.12 and 13 respectively in both the cases. It is also the case of the respondents that both the accused issued separate cheques and some of the cheques are honoured and only one cheque each issued by the wife and husband are not honoured. The learned counsel contend that there is no joint complaint, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and there was no two cause of action and only one cause of action arose on account of entering into sale agreement by the accused in favour of the husband and wife, who are the complainants and also the memorandum of settlement and the same is not fatal to the case of the complainants. The learned counsel also filed a memo 10 stating that the second complainant does not want to press the complaint against the other accused, who has not issued the cheque in both the cases, but the fact is that both the accused have issued separate cheques and separate proceedings has been initiated. The learned counsel contend that objections is also filed to the memo and the same is a summary trial. The learned counsel also contend that the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case and any time it can be withdrawn by the complainant. 11. In reply to this argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that notice was issued against both of them and both of them have filed the complaint and hence it is a joint complaint and joint complaint is not maintainable. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and though two revision petitions are filed against the conviction and sentence as well as confirmation, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly concentrated only with regard to the joint complaint is 11 not maintainable. Having considered the contention of both the learned counsel and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also filing of memo seeking withdrawal of the complaint by the respondents, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the fact that the complaint filed by the respondents is a joint complaint and the same ought not to have been considered and the same is not maintainable and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? (ii) Whether the complainants/respondents are permitted to file a memo for withdrawal of the complaint by the second complainant as not pressing the same? (iii) What order? Point Nos.(i) and (ii): 13. Having considered the factual aspects of the case of the complainants, it is their specific case that the complainants had agreed to purchase the property belonging to the accused for sale consideration of Rs.92,40,000/- and out of that, 12 Rs.45,00,000/- was paid by the complainants. The records disclose that the same did not take place and the accused caused legal notice canceling the sale agreement and thereafter entered into a joint settlement deed in terms of Exs.P.12 and 13 in both the cases, but the same is one document. Hence, it is clear that cause of action is one and the same as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is important to note that both the parties are parties to the sale agreement and joint settlement. It is important to note that while refunding the amount, which the accused had received, he repaid the amount through cheques. The subject matter of the cheques is also one issued in favour of the husband and another issued in favour of the wife and when both the cheques were presented, they were dishonoured and hence in view of the agreement in terms of Ex.P.7 and settlement deed, notices are issued and complaints are filed. The Trial Court has taken the cognizance and considered the matter. The fact that cheques are issued in favour of one of the complainants in both the cases is not in dispute and cause of action is only one cause of action. When such being the case and when the parties with regard to passing of consideration is concerned are parties to both agreement and 13 settlement deed, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. However, there is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by the learned counsel for the petitioner having considered the judgments of this Court, Jammu and Kashmir and also Madras High Court. The Cr.P.C. does not contemplate filing of joint complaint and the Court has to take note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, since agreement was entered between both the complainants and accused persons and repayment is also made in favour of the husband and wife and cheques are issued in favour of the husband and wife, but both of them have joined in filing the complaint. 14. Now the learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo not pressing the complaint filed by the second complainant and the same is a curable defect. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner filed objections to the memo, the same will not take away the case of the respondents. When the cheque was issued by one of the accused, he can be prosecuted, but this Court has to take note of the fact that both of them are husband and wife and having considered the same, this Court can permit the second complainant to withdraw the 14 complaint in view of the judgments rendered by different High Courts taking note of Cr.P.C. does not contemplate filing of joint complaint. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that joint complaint is not maintainable cannot be accepted and in view of filing of the memo, the same is curable by not pressing the complaint on behalf of the second complainant. Having taken note of the memo as well as this Court having coming to the conclusion that the same is a curable defect, the conviction and sentence is sustainable in the eye of law against the accused. 15. Now with regard to the merit of the case is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner only focused with regard to the maintainability of the joint complaint. The fact that there was an agreement between the parties is not in dispute in terms of Ex.P.7. It is also not in dispute that subsequently notice was caused for cancellation of agreement and the parties entered into an agreement of settlement on 15.09.2016 and part payment was also made and only with regard to the remaining part payment, cause of action was arosen when the cheques were bounced. When such material is available on record, both the Courts having considered the sale 15 agreement as well as the subsequent settlement deed and liability is towards the legally recoverable debt, considered the same on merits and the accused also did not lead any rebuttable evidence and also not raised any probable defence and on merits also, the scope of revision is not warranted to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Point No.(iii): 16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Both the revision petitions are dismissed. (ii) The memo filed by the second complainant not pressing the complaint is accepted. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE MD