Allowed

K.Vivekananda Reddy Katama v. Rahul Nambiar

Madras HC28 Oct 2024CRL RC/223/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought revision of an order in a cheque case; respondent filed a compounding petition invoking Section 147 of the NI Act after settlement payments of principal plus additional 10%. The court allowed compounding, discharged petitioners, permitted withdrawal of deposited amounts, and directed credit in execution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Offence compounded; petitioners discharged; complainant permitted to withdraw deposited amounts; credit for settled amount in EP proceedings.

K.Vivekananda Reddy Katama Vs Rahul Nambiar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2024

¶7

and Crl.M.P.Nos.1893 & 15224of 2024

¶8

1.K.Vivekananda Reddy Katama 2.Hema Katama ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Rahul Nambiar ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in respect of the order dated 11.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1423 of 2024 in C.C.No.5447 of 2020 on the file of the Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate Court I, Allikulam, Chennai and set aside the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan For Respondent : Mr.Vignesh Venkat

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 25.09.2020, a petition

¶15

to compound the offence is filed by the respondent/complainant before this Court.

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2024

¶19

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection for

¶20

compounding the offence and withdrawal of the complaint. The petitioner's only apprehension is that after settling the principal amount with additional 10%, the amounts paid to the respondent/complainant to be given credit in the EP proceedings when the same is considered.

¶21

3.The respondent/complainant filed compounding petition along with

¶22

affidavit before this Court in Crl.M.P.No.15224 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2024 invoking Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to compound the offence and the same is ordered.

¶23

4.In the memo filed by the petitioners, payments made to the respondent/complainant for a sum of Rs.25,83,232/- on 09.02.2024 and Rs.2,58,325/- on 19.09.2024 is recorded which is admitted by the respondent/complainant. In view of the same, nothing survives in this petition.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2024

¶27

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed and the petitioners are discharged from all the offences. The respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited by the petitioner including the interest accrued, if any, by filing an appropriate petition without notice to the petitioners. Further, since the principal amount along with additional 10% is paid to the respondent/complainant, the same to be given credit in the EP proceedings when the same is considered.

¶28

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

28.10.2024

¶30

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cse

¶31

¶32

The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai.

¶33

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2024

¶37

cse

¶38

Crl.R.C.No.223 of 2024

¶39

28.10.2024

¶40

4/4

¶41

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

K.Vivekananda Reddy Katama v. Rahul Nambiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vivekananda Reddy Katama v. Rahul Nambiar

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

Harinath Vs the State Represented by

Arul @ Aruldhas Vs the State Rep. by

Ramesh Vs State Rep.by

Sakthi Machine Tools Vs N.Sivakumar

Panacea Biotec Ltd. Vs The State of Tamil nadu represented by

P.Ramesh Vs G.Kokila