Disposed

Sri Balakrishnan Krishna Kumar v. M/S Green Apple Productions

Karnataka HC24 May 2022CRL.P/3029/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of cross-criminal petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging a Revisional Court's order allowing 20% interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court reduced the compensation to 10% due to partial payments and set up a mechanism for withdrawal upon settlement.

What did the court decide?

Modified the order of the Revisional Court to grant interim compensation at 10% instead of 20%; petitioners to deposit the reduced amount within four weeks.

Sri Balakrishnan Krishna Kumar Vs M/S Green Apple… — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10169 OF 2021 C/W

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3029 OF 2022

¶8

In Crl.P.No.10169/2021:

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SRI PRAKASH NAMBIAR RAMACHANDRAN 45 YEARS, DESIGNATED PARTNER SAFFRON GANESHA ENTERTAINMENT LLP NO.1002, ANMOL ENCLAVE CHS LTD. OFF S.V ROAD, OPP. PATEL PETROL PUMP GOREGAON WEST MUMBAI, MUMBAI 400 062

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

[BY SRI. S.SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADV. A/W SRI. TAHURA ANZAR, ADV.]

¶13

AND

¶14

M/S GREEN APPLE PRODUCTIONS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. KEVIN JOHNSON, NO 5123/13, 14^TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULA MATHIKERE, BENGALURU 560054 ... RESPONDENT

¶15

[BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA V., ADV.]

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2021 IN CRL.RP.NO.25030/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE PETITION.

¶18

In Crl.P.No.3029 /2022: BETWEEN

¶19

SRI BALAKRISHNAN KRISHNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O P.N. BALAKRISHNAN DESIGNATED PARTNER SAFFRON GANESHA ENTERTAINMENT LLP NO.1002, ANMOL ENCLAVE CHS LTD OFF S.V. ROAD OPP PATEL PETROL PUMP GOREGAON WEST MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400062 ALSO AT: NO.463, BRINDAVAN MES ROAD, GOKULA POST, BENGALURU-560054 ... PETITIONER

¶20

[BY SRI. S.SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADV. A/W SRI. FREUD RICHARDSON, ADV.]

¶21

AND

¶22

M/S GREEN APPLE PRODUCTIONS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. KEVIN JOHNSON NO.5123/13, 14^TH MAIN ROAD GOKULA MATHIKERE BENGALURU-560054 ... RESPONDENT [BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA V., ADV.]

¶23

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2021 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 25030 OF 2021 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE LXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU.

¶25

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Both these petitions call in question an order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Crl.R.P.No.25030/2021 by the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.

¶28

Heard the learned Senior counsel

¶29

Sri.S.Sreevatsa, appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri. Raghavendra V., representing the respondent.

¶30

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶31

The petitioners and the respondent are in a transaction concerning film production. In furtherance

¶32

¶33

of the activity of the petitioners, it transpires that the respondent had financed certain amount to the petitioners against which the petitioners had issued certain cheques and when the same were dishonoured, a complaint came to be registered by the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The merit of the complaint or the transaction between the parties is not the subject matter of the lis.

¶34

In C.C.No.55404/2019, which arose out of

¶35

the private complaint registered, the complainant files an application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking 20% of the amount of the instrument as compensation, as is available under the statute. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 18.03.2021, rejected the application on the ground that it did not contained reasons as to why the said amount is required for the complainant. This rejection was

¶36

¶37

called in question by the complainant before the Revisional Court in Crl.R.P.No.25030/2021. After hearing the parties, the Court has allowed the application filed by the complainant under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, while setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. It is this order that the accused calls in question in these proceedings.

¶38

Learned Senior counsel would submit that the order passed by the Revisional Court suffers from non-application of mind, as the order itself is incongruous. He would further submit that out of the amount of the instrument Rs.92,00,000/-, about Rs.33,50,000/- is already paid even according to the complaint and the disputed amount is about Rs.58,00,000/-. The Court has not considered these aspects of the matter while passing an order allowing the application. He would seek quashment of the said

¶39

¶40

proceedings remitting the matter back to the hands of the Revisional Court for reconsideration.

¶41

On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the complainant would refute the submissions to contend that the incongruity in the order is removed by a corrected order being issued by the Revisional Court. Insofar as the disputed amount is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that the cheque is issued only after the aforesaid repayment and it has receipt of Rs.33,50,000/- does not come within Rs.92,16,169/- and it is a matter of trial, as this is an amount in dispute and would seek dismissal of these petitions.

¶42

I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶43

¶44

The afore-narrated facts insofar as it

¶45

concerns the present lis are not in dispute and are therefore not reiterated. The application filed by the complainant came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate and the same is allowed by the Revisional Court. The mandate of the statute though is to award interim compensation of an amount of 20% to the maximum, it can varry from 0 to 20%. The said variance is not taken note of by the Revisional Court.

¶46

Therefore, in my considered view, the amount of 20% be reduced to 10% in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, on the entire cheque amount for a resolution of the lis before this Court.

¶47

Learned Senior counsel would further submit that the matter is set for cross-examination on 31.05.2022 and would not seek any time and would co-operate for conclusion of the proceedings. The same submissions are made by the learned counsel for the

¶48

¶49

respondent as well with regard to co-operation in completion of the proceedings.

¶50

Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, I deem it appropriate to modify the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 25.10.2021 by modifying the amount that is payable by the petitioner in terms of 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act to 10% of the instrument from 20% as ordered, which shall be deposited before the learned Magistrate by the petitioners, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the complainant would be at liberty to withdraw the same in terms of the mandate of the statute.

¶51

It is made clear that if the petitioners would not co-operate with the conclusion of the proceedings the amount of 20% that is awarded by the Revisional Court would get restored.

¶52

¶53

With the aforesaid observations, the criminal

¶54

petitions stand disposed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sri Balakrishnan Krishna Kumar v. M/S Green Apple Productions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Balakrishnan Krishna Kumar v. M/S Green Apple Productions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atma Sudhir Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Arun Kumar Vs the State of Karantaka

Balasubramanya D R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nikhil Kurgod Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Bansal Aradhya Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs the State through Public Prosecutor