K.Ramakrishnan v. the Housing & Urban Devlp Corporation

Kerala HC22 Oct 2008Crl.MC/24/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court closed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC in a cheque bounce case. The parties had reached an amicable partial settlement and were discussing further payments. The court ruled that the petition need not be kept pending as settlement was likely and granted liberty to the parties to raise contentions if the settlement fails.

What did the court decide?

Closed the criminal miscellaneous case and exempted the petitioner from personal appearance pending settlement talks.

K.Ramakrishnan Vs the Housing & Urban Devlp Corporation — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 24 of 2006

¶6

¶7

ST.197/2004 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶8

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.ENARC BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, XXV/456, MAHESWARI BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶11

M/S.ENARC BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, XXV/456, MAHESWARI BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶13

RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶14

¶15

THE HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, K.S.H.BCOMMERCIAL CUM RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, PATTOM JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI

¶18

SRI.K.R.KURUP FOR R1 SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR FOR R1

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

A.K.BASHEER, J.

¶21

- - - - Crl.M.C.No.24 OF 2006

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of October 2008

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the subsequent developments and also in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, I do not deem it necessary to refer to the allegations in the complaint or the contentions raised by the petitioner in this petition.

¶25

It is submitted by learned counsel on either side that the parties have more or less come to an amicable settlement in the case. It is admitted by learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakhs) has already been paid by the petitioner as part payment towards the entire liability pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting held between the parties. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner/accused has agreed to pay off the entire liability in terms of the decree passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.24 OF 2006

¶27

:: 2 ::

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that further details with regard to the exact amount to be paid to the complainant, time schedule for such payment, etc. are yet to be worked out. Discussions are still going on. Anyhow, both sides are confident that the dispute will be settled amicably. In that view of the matter, I do not propose to keep this petition pending on the file of this court any more.

¶29

Therefore, the Crl.M.C. is closed. It will be open to the parties to perform the last rites before the trial court itself. It is made clear that I have not considered the merit of the rival contentions of the parties in this case. Liberty is reserved to both sides to raise all those contentions if at all the proposed settlement does not take place. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, petitioner/accused is exempted from personal appearance before the trial court pending the talks of settlement.

¶30

Criminal M.C. is closed in the above terms.

¶31

(A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)

¶32

jes

K.Ramakrishnan v. the Housing & Urban Devlp Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramakrishnan v. the Housing & Urban Devlp Corporation

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

K.v.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Sancy John Vs K.P.Subramanian

K.S.Ramankutty Vs C.B.I.Speical Police Establishment,Ekm.

R. Dandapani Vs State of Kerala

P.R.Das Vs v.K.Madhavan

Krishna Priya Vs State of Kerala