(Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.)
Asha L. @ Asha Chethan Kumar _______________________ Appellant;
v.
Komala S.P. ______________________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 36 of 2025), decided on June 4, 2026
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Sanjay Karol, J.:—
1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal at the instance of the appellant-accused questions the correctness of judgment dated 11th September 2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal no. 199 of 2024 (A) which set aside the judgment passed in Crl. A. No. 25319 of 2022 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, which in turn had set aside the judgment in CC No. 51657 of 2019 by XXXIII, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
3. The appellant-accused had entered into an agreement with the complainant to buy the latter’s ongoing business concern, ‘Purple Tree’, a salon, initially for a consideration of Rs. 68 lakhs and later at Rs. 56 lakhs. It is undisputed that out of this, an amount Rs. 27 lakhs stood paid. In furtherance of the remaining consideration amount, two cheques bearing nos. 073776 for Rs. 10 lakhs and 073776 for Rs. 9 lakhs were given to the complainant. When two of these cheques were presented for encashment, the same were dishonoured on account of payment having been stopped. Accordingly, a complaint dated 4th October 2018 was lodged with the police. Although efforts were made to settle the matter before the police authorities by way of payment worth Rs. 5,50,000/- towards final consideration, it is alleged that the same was not paid. The legal notice initiating proceedings was sent on 27th November 2018 and reply thereto was filed on 5th December 2018.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 21,50,000/-. The First Appellate Court acquitted, and the High Court again convicted the appellant-accused. Hence the matter stands before us.
Heard learned counsel, senior counsel for the parties.
4. Given that the dispute inter se the parties arose from an Agreement to Sell, and especially in view of the fact that parties have had a relationship of employer-employee between them for at least some time before disputes came to be, we had sent the matter to Supreme Court Mediation Centre, in terms of order dated 13th January 2026. Despite best efforts, the matter could not be resolved and as such we asked the parties to be present on the next date of hearing. Pursuant to our interaction, certain events took place which have been recorded in the additional affidavit dated 11th May 2026 filed by the respondent. One of the primary points therein was to transfer the leasehold rights of the property wherein the salon was located to the appellant-accused who had already taken over the operations of the entity. The landlord one Mr. S. Naga, apparently informed the respondent that the appellant-accused owing to financial difficulties have been unable to pay rent on the premises since April 2021 and as such had handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the property to the landlord and also agreed specifically that he could sell all materials contained within the premises in an effort to realise the deficit in rent. This was done in terms of Agreement dated 22nd October 2021.
5. In these circumstances, although the appellant-accused finally got the business, it did not fructify into a profitable business concern in her hands and at the end nothing remains. In these peculiar facts, convicting the appellant-accused in terms as decided by the Trial Court would be a fruitless exercise for an amount worth Rs. 21,50,000/- would be unattainable, more so in view of the appellant accused’s defence set up in his response to the legal notice of the amount not being a debt due. The sentence is as such set aside.
Appeal is allowed. Pending applications stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 36/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-09-2024 in CRLA No. 199/2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]
Asha L. @ Asha Chethan Kumar.….Petitioner(s)
Versus
Komala S.P.….Respondent(s)
[Heard By:- Hon’ble Sanjay Karol and Hon’Ble Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
IA No. 568/2025 – Exemption from Filing O.T.
1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol pronounced an order (non reportable) of the Bench comprising of His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order (non reportable), which is placed on the file.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
