Allowed

Sri.v.N.Raju v. Smt.Mini Krishna Kumar

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2024CRL.RP/533/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction for cheque dishonour. Parties filed a joint memo recording amicable settlement, with Rs.2,25,000 deposited towards full and final settlement. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside both conviction judgments.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside at both levels; petitioner acquitted under Section 138 NI Act; complainant permitted to withdraw Rs.2,25,000 in deposit.

Sri.v.N.Raju Vs Smt.Mini Krishna Kumar — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13393 CRL.RP No. 533 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 533 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. V N RAJU S/O NARAYANAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.15, VENKATESHWAA NILAYA GREEN WOOD LAYOUT, VADDARAPALYA HORAMAVU AGRA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA N R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. MINI KRISHNA KUMAR W/O KRISHNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO. 658/7, SANTHOSH ILLAM VIVEKANANDA STREET KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 033.

¶13

(BY SRI. C V SIJU, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE LEARNED XIV ACMM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.27459/2011 DATED 9.4.2013, AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE CONFIRMING BY THE FTC-III, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.25065/2013 DATED 13.3.2015 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRL.RP AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:13393 CRL.RP No. 533 of 2015

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner-accused who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.7,50,000/- is before this Court.

¶21

The respondent-complainant is present before this Court. The petitioner-accused and the respondent-complainant have filed a joint memo stating that, they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves. In terms of the settlement, the respondent-complainant has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards full and final settlement of her claim and the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- is deposited by the petitioner-accused before the Trial Court in the light of the interim order granted by this Court and also by the Appellate Court. The petitioner-accused has no objection for the respondent-complainant withdrawing the said amount, and the respondent-complainant has no objection for setting aside the judgment of conviction.

¶22

The joint memo is placed on record.

¶23

In view of the above, the petition requires to be allowed in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:13393 CRL.RP No. 533 of 2015

¶28

ii) The impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.3.2015, passed by the learned Fast Track Court III, Mayo Hall at Bengaluru City in Crl.Appeal No.25065/2013, and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.4.2013 passed by the XIV, learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.27459/2011 are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence Punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit before the Trial Court.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Sri.v.N.Raju v. Smt.Mini Krishna Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.v.N.Raju v. Smt.Mini Krishna Kumar

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

Smt.G. Veena Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Mahammad Rashid Vs the State of Karnataka

H Raviprakash Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Darshan a v Vs State of Karnataka Health and Family Welfare Department

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Balachandra Naika Vs State of Karnataka