Disposed

Sri Vasudev N v. Smt B Radhakumari

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2022CRL.RP/824/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Bench, granted the petitioner six months to deposit the balance fine. It also permitted the respondent to withdraw her share from the initial deposit and directed the State Exchequer's share to be defrayed from the same.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six months to deposit balance fine; Respondent permitted to withdraw compensation portion from deposited amount; State Exchequer share directed to be defrayed.

Sri Vasudev N Vs Smt B Radhakumari — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.824 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Sri Vasudev N., Son of Late Nanjudappa, Aged about 58 years, R/at No.525, Tank Bund Road, Doddaballapura Town, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District-561203. Correct Residential Address: Sri. Vasudev N., Son of Late Nanjundappa, Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.303, 4^th Main, Someshwara Extension, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District-561203. …Petitioner (By Sri Tomy Sebastian, Advocate for Smt. Melanie Sebastian, Advocate)

¶7

AND:

¶8

Smt. B.Radhakumari, D/o D.Rangaswamy, Major, Hindu, Residing at: Himagiri Meadows, No.81, Bennerghatta Road, Gottegeri, Bengaluru-560083. …Respondent (By Sri Nithin R., Advocate)

¶9

:: 2 ::

¶10

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 21.11.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.671/2019 by the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru, Confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the XXII ACMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.3869/2016 and etc.

¶11

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that if another six months time is granted to the petitioner, he will deposit the balance of the fine amount. Counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objections for the same. But he seeks permission to withdraw the amount already deposited by the petitioner.

¶14

Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner says no objection for

¶15

:: 3 ::

¶16

withdrawing the deposited money by the

¶17

respondent.

¶18

Judgment of the trial Court shows that the petitioner has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.20,00,000/- in connection with the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Out of Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.19,98,000/- shall be paid to the respondent/ complainant towards compensation and Rs.2,000/shall be paid to the State Exchequer. Therefore out of the deposited amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, the respondent is permitted to withdraw Rs.9,98,000/- and Rs.2,000/- shall be defrayed to the State Exchequer towards prosecution expenses. The petitioner is given six months time from today for depositing the balance fine amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶19

Since the petitioner’s counsel submits that he does not press this petition in view of time

¶20

:: 4 ::

¶21

being extended, this revision petition stands

¶22

disposed of .

¶23

Sd/JUDGE

¶24

Kmv/-

Sri Vasudev N v. Smt B Radhakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vasudev N v. Smt B Radhakumari

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

Sri Chowdesha Vs Sri M Nanjundegowda

Smt R Kalai Selvi Vs Mr Bheemanna

Smt R Kalai Selvi Vs Mr Bheemanna

Devendrappa H Vs the State

Mr.Virendra Khanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Noor Eslamansori @ Sanjay Vs State of Karnataka