Dismissed

T.L.Rajeswaran v. C.Ramaiyan

Madras HC11 Apr 2022CRL OP/6227/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court, upon verifying the mediation report, observed that the dispute was amicably settled with a monetary payment, and consequently found no ground for further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed as the matter was settled in mediation with a full and final settlement amount.

T.L.Rajeswaran Vs C.Ramaiyan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6227 of 2019

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.3442 & 3443 of 2019

¶8

T.L.Rajeswaran ... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

C.Ramaiyan ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.170 of 2018 on the file of Fast Track Judicial Magistrate Court, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District herein for the offence under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Shivakumar for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.Balakrishnan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash C.C.No.170 of 2018 on the file of Fast Track Judicial Magistrate Court, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District.

¶16

When the case is taken up for hearing, Mr.R.Shivakumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent had been settled before the Mediation and report to that effect had also been furnished.

¶17

On verification of the records, it is found that in the cause list it is printed as 'mediation report submitted, File No.385 of 2019'. On a perusal of the mediation report, it is found that the matter had been amicably settled in the mediation and the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

“6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto:-

¶20

The respondent has agreed and received Rs.5,50,000/- towards C.C.No.170/2018 as full and final settlement. The respondent has agreed to withdraw C.C.No.170/2018 on the file of Fast Track Court, Mayiladuthurai. Each party confirms that they have no further claim in this regard.

¶21

By signing this agreement the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to C.C.No.170/2018 (Case No) and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through the process of conciliation/ Mediation.”

¶22

In view of the above, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Criminal Original Petition. Therefore, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed as 'Settled in Mediation'. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

¶29

1.The Judicial Magistrate,

¶30

The Fast Track Judicial Magistrate Court,

¶31

Mayiladuthurai,

¶32

Nagapattinam District.

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.6227 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3442 & 3443 of 2019

¶34

EV(CO) SB(05/05/2022)

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.L.Rajeswaran v. C.Ramaiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.L.Rajeswaran v. C.Ramaiyan

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

A.Nainar Kani Vs the Inspector of Police

Mathew Samuel Vs State Rep by

S.Venugopal Vs State Rep. by

M/S.Krish Homes Vs Syed Mohammed Javeed

Boopalan Vs the State Rep by Its

G.Jeyan Vs the State Rep by Its