Allowed

Yesodharankrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2019OP(Crl.)/189/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam set aside an order quashing a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to a settlement that later collapsed. The court allowed the original petition and directed the magistrate to proceed with the case within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; original petition allowed; magistrate directed to take back complaint file and proceed; final disposal within three months.

Yesodharankrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 22ND ASWINA, 1941

¶5

OP(Crl.).No.189 OF 2019

¶6

ST 2437/2016 DATED 17-02-2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, MAVELIKKARA

¶7

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT

¶8

YESODHARANKRISHNAN

¶9

AGED 67 YEARS

¶10

S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, SREESAIBHAVANAM, VEDARAPLAVU, CHARUMOOD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶14

2 RABIA.K.M. PROPRIETOR, KKM SONS, KATTAKATHU HOUSE, VELIPARAMBIL, PATHAZHAKKAD MASJID, ALA, KODUNGALLUR-638003.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.C.K.PRASAD SR PP

¶18

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(Crl).189/2019

JUDGMENT

Ext P3 order is sought to be quashed. Heard Sri.Shaju Purushothaman, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and Sri.B.H.Manzoor, the learned counsel for the second respondent/accused.

¶23

S.T.2437/2016 on the file of the judicial magistrate-I, first class, Mavelikara was a private prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant and the accused in a mediation conducted at the court annexed mediation centre came to a settlement. It was agreed that as the full and final settlement the complainant would receive and the accused would pay nine lakhs rupees in six instalments. In view of the said settlement, the learned magistrate passed the impugned order.

¶24

The impugned order reads as under :

¶25

OP(Crl).189/2019

¶26

¶27

This is a private complaint filed by the complainant alleging offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Complainant present. Accused absent, applied. Matter settled in mediation. Report filed. Mediation agreement shall form part of the order.

¶28

The order does not suggest what happened to the complaint. It is also not shown whether the accused is convicted or acquitted. The impugned order cannot stand. It is liable to be set aside.

¶29

The impugned order was passed in view of a settlement between the parties. Ext P2 is the document of compromise. Admittedly one lakh rupees was paid after the settlement. No amount was paid thereafter. The parties were again referred to mediation while the present original petition was pending. Again a settlement was arrived at. The document of settlement is produced by the mediator. As per the said settlement, 8.5 lakhs rupees should be paid within a period of six months in

¶30

OP(Crl).189/2019

¶31

¶32

instalments from 19.7.2019. No payment is made. Therefore the second settlement also collapsed. The accused cannot be allowed to play the very same trick again and again. There is no point in keeping the original

¶33

petition in abeyance for another three months without any hope that the accused will pay any amount.

¶34

The impugned order is liable to be set aside as already said. The same is set aside.

¶35

The original petition is allowed. The impugned order passed on 17.2.2018 in S.T.2437/2016 is set aside. The learned magistrate is directed to take back the complaint on file and proceed with it in accordance with law. The final disposal of the complaint case shall take place within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

A.M.BABU

Judge

Mrcs/14.10.

OP(Crl).189/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST.NO.2437/2016 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-1, MAVELIKARA DT.7.11.2016 EXHIBIT P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT IN ST.NO.2437/2016 DT.20.1.2018 EXHIBIT P3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.2.2018 IN ST.NO.2437/2016 PASSED B THE JFCM COURT-1, MAVELIKARA

Yesodharankrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yesodharankrishnan v. State of Kerala

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

Muhammed Shafeeque Kunnoor, Vs Joint Commissioner of Customs

Riyas Vs the State of Kerala

R.Jaikrishnan@Jaikrishnan Nair.R Vs Mr. Praveen Kumar.G

Dinesan Vs State of Kerala

Akshay, Vs the State of Kerala

Aravind.B.T., Vs State of Kerala