NARASIMHA MURTHY B H , Vs. N S NATARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the complainant in C.C. No.16911/2007, which has given raise to Criminal appeal No.840/2009 and also was the complainant in C.C. No.16912/2007, which has given raise to Criminal appeal No.839/2009. The respondent in these appeals was arrayed as accused in C.C. Nos. 16911/2007 and 16912/2007. The learned Trial Judge has acquitted the respondent of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the complainant is before this Court.

(2.) I have heard Sri.S.G.Bhagavan, learned counsel for complainant and Sri.K.R.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for accused.

(3.) SRI .S.G.Bhagavan, learned counsel has raised a technical objection that the Trial Court has not formulated the point for determination under Section 354 Cr.P.C. It is true that the case put forth by complainant has not been carefully examined before formulating the points for determination. However, the same has not resulted in failure of justice. It is not demonstrated that points formulated by the learned Judge has misdirected the learned Judge to arrive at perverse or capricious findings. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records and oral and documentary evidence, I find that the father of the complainant namely B.H.Honnappa had initiated O.S.No.34/1995 against the accused herein and other persons in relation to certain immovable properties. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff B.H.Honnappa died and therefore, complainant and other sons of Honnappa came on record as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff. On 11.08.2006, the parties arrived at a settlement and the plaintiff filed a memo of withdrawal which reads as hereunder: