Disposed

Mr Nateshan Sunder v. Mr G M Hemanth Kumar

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023CRL.A/1199/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) CrPC against an order of acquittal on Section 138 NI Act. The Court recorded a jointly filed compromise memo wherein the appellant and respondents agreed to a settlement terms involving interim cash payment and post-dated cheques.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed upon recording of the committed compromise memo; accused directed to receive judicial security deposit.

Mr Nateshan Sunder Vs Mr G M Hemanth Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45093 CRL.A No. 1199 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1199 OF 2013

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. NATESHAN SUNDER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O LATE NATESH MUDALIAR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.168, SEPPINGS ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. P.C. NARASIMHAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MR. G.M. HEMANTH KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF MOHAN RAJ, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT #04, FIRST FLOOR, II 'B' CROSS, MANORAVANPALYA MUNEESHWARA LAYOUT, SULTANPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶13

MR. VINCENT RAJESH, AGED 41 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT #21, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, S.K.GARDEN, BANGALORE - 560 046.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. N. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.11.2013 PASSED BY THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE IN

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:45093 CRL.A No. 1199 of 2013

¶19

C.C.NO.26109/2012 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I.ACT.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Both the parties and their respective counsel are present. They have filed a joint memo dated 12.12.2023, in which it is stated as under:

¶23

"The appellant and respondents submits as under;

¶24

1. The appellant / complainant named above has preferred the above criminal appeal against order of acquittal dated 16/141/2013 passed in C.C. No.26109/2012 by the Hon'ble Court of XIV AddI. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, who was pleased to acquit the respondents herein for offence punishable under 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶25

2. It is submitted that the appellant and respondents at the instance of their well wishers have compromised the above The respondent No.1 on behalf of respondent No.2 in lieu of compromise has agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) in Three Instalments on the following manner;

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:45093 CRL.A No. 1199 of 2013

¶28

(i) Rs.16,668/- is to be paid on 12/12/2023 by way of by the respondent No.1.

¶29

(ii) Rs.16,666/- is paid by way of Post Dated Cheque dated 12/01/2024, vide Cheque No.242911, to be drawn on ICICI Bank, Jeevan Bhima Nagar Branch, Bangalore - 560 075.

¶30

(iii) Rs.16,666/- is paid by way of Post Dated Cheque dated 12/02/2024, vide Cheque No.242912, to be drawn on ICICI Bank, Jeevan Bhima Nagar Branch, Bangalore - 560 075.

¶31

The appellant and respondents have agreed for the above said terms on their own in lieu of the terms of the settlement agreed between them.

¶32

WHEREFORE, the appellant and respondents most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to place this Joint Memo on record and dispose of the above matter accordingly, in the interest of justice."

¶33

The contents of the said joint memo is read

¶34

over and explained to the parties. Both have voluntarily agreed to the terms of the joint memo.

¶35

3. The same is placed on record.

¶36

In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of .

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45093 CRL.A No. 1199 of 2013

¶38

It is noticed that accused No.1 has deposited Rs.5,000/cash security vide R.No.0384798 dated 05.07.2012.

¶39

The trial Court is directed to disburse the same in favour of accused No.1. If the amount is remitted to the Government, the trial Court is directed to call for that amount in accordance with law and disburse the same to accused No.1.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

PGG CT: BHK

Mr Nateshan Sunder v. Mr G M Hemanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Nateshan Sunder v. Mr G M Hemanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N Munireddy Vs Smt R Premavathi

Sri M C Shivappa Vs Sri Udaya Kumar Shetty

The State by the Coastal Security Police Station Vs Althaf @ Altha

Sri S Kumar Vs Sri Shanmugam

M/S.Kadidal Supari Company Vs M/S.Nisarga Supari Traders

Siddegowda M Vs R Somashekara