Aneesh S.Babu v. Palani

Madras HC14 Aug 2025CRL OP/22530/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; suspension of sentence; condition of deposit; 20% deposit reduced to 10% of compensation amount; section 528 BNSS; Criminal Original Petition; Madras High Court; VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai; Crl.M.P.No.5519 of 2025; C.A.No.640 of 2025; payments by bank transfer; disputed compensation amount; N. Sathish Kumar, J.; order dated 14-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Condition of deposit reduced from 20% to 10% of the compensation amount, to be deposited within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; Criminal Original Petition disposed of accordingly. ¶29-30

Aneesh S.Babu Vs Palani — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL OP No. 22530 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 22530 of 2025

¶7

Aneesh S.Babu S/o.Surendra Babu, Omkaram, Kakkodu, Aickarakonam, Punalur, Kollam, Kerala-691 305.

Petitioner(s)

1. Palani

S/o.D.Muniyandy, Flat No.4A, 4th Floor, Sree Narayana Apartments, Z- 233, 6th Street, Z-Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to set aside the order dated 25.06.2025 of the Learned VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.5519 of 2025 in C.A.No.640 of 2025 and pass any such further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of the case.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.R. Ramesh Kumar

¶15

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

¶16

CRL OP No. 22530 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Challenge has been made to the Order of the appellate Court imposing the

¶19

condition to deposit 20% while suspending sentence awarded by the trial Court

¶20

in a complaint lodged under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶21

It is the contention of the petitioner that the appellate Court has not taken note of the fact that the payments have been made by way of bank

¶22

transfer. It is his further contention that the amount claimed by the

¶23

complainant/respondent itself is disputed by the petitioner.

¶24

As per the submissions of the petitioner he had made various

¶25

payments. However, while calculation, there appears to be some mistake. In such view of the matter, the instead of 20% of the compensation amount, the petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the compensation amount within a

¶26

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶27

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

¶28

CRL OP No. 22530 of 2025

¶29