Disposed

L.Sarasu @ Saraswathi v. M.Kumari

Madras HC14 Dec 2024CRL RC/1571/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against conviction under Section 138 NI Act was settled before National Lok Adalat; respondent agreed to accept Rs.9,00,000 in full and final settlement in instalments; conviction and sentence to stand set aside on completion of payments.

What did the court decide?

Settlement recorded: Rs.9,00,000 payable in instalments; conviction/sentence to be set aside on full payment; court fee refunded.

L.Sarasu @ Saraswathi Vs M.Kumari — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI National Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee Saturday, the 14th day of December 2024

¶3

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT AWARD

¶4

(Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987) Presided over by

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and

¶6

Members

¶7

Mr.N.Balasubramanian, District Judge (Retd.) Mr.S.Pushpakaran, Advocate

¶8

Crl.R.C.No.1571 of 2024

¶9

Criminal Revision filed to call for the records in judgment dated 01.04.2024 in C.A.No.39 of 2023 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional

¶10

Sessions Judge, Chennai, dismissing the appeal arising out of conviction and sentence imposed vide C.C.No.1040 of 2020 dated 15.12.2022 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-IV, Chennai and set aside the same.

¶11

L.Sarasu @ Saraswathi ... Petitioner

¶12

Vs .

¶13

M.Kumari ... Respondent

¶14

This case came up for settlement before the National Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.T.Thirisangu, and the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.V.Subramani are present. After https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both

¶15

¶16

parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:

¶17

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶18

Both the parties and their respective counsel are present.

¶19

The respondent has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, alleging that two cheques for a total sum of Rs.13,20,000/- were issued by the petitioner and when presented for collection, it was returned unpaid for the reasons, 'funds insufficient' and inspite of statutory notice, the petitioner did not make any payment.

¶20

It is reported by the parties that the petitioner pending appeal had deposited a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- to the credit of C.C.No.1040 of 2020 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC No.IV, George Town, Chennai.

¶21

Parties have now arrived at compromise by which respondent has agreed to receive a total sum of Rs.9,00,000/- in full and final settlement. The parties have also agreed that the respondent shall withdraw the amount of Rs.2,64,000/- deposited fourthwith. The balance amount shall be paid in the following manner:-

¶22

a)Rs.1,36,000/- shall be paid today by G-pay to the account of respondent

¶23

b)Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the respondent on or before 20th January

¶24

¶25

c)balance Rs.4,00,000 shall be paid to the respondent on or before 20th https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis May 2025.

¶26

¶27

On completion of payments, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner shall shand set aside. In the meanwhile, no action shall be taken pursuant to the judgment of the appellate Court.

¶28

The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of accordingly. The Court fee

¶29

paid by the petitioner to be refunded.

¶30

L.Sarasu @ Saraswathi

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner

¶32

M.Kumari Counsel for respondent

¶33

This National Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above settlement.

¶34

The Court fee paid shall be refunded to the parties in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.

¶35

Judge

¶36

Member

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Member

The parties/Advocate concerned

¶42

Copy to:

¶43

The XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai,

¶44

The Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-IV, Chennai.

¶45

3.The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai.

¶46

4.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶47

5.The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Crl.R.C.No.1571 of 2024

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

14.12.2024

L.Sarasu @ Saraswathi v. M.Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Sarasu @ Saraswathi v. M.Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sampath Vs State Represented by

Raju @ Rajubai Vs State Rep.by

Sekar Alias Mani Vs the State Rep by Its, the Inspector of Police

The Branch Manager Vs Eswaran @ Hemanth Kumar

J. Rajasekar Vs V.S. Gunaseelan

The Branch Manager Vs Lakshmi