B N Ramesh vs Nagaraju

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Sep 13, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1718374

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1718374
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Lok Adalath
Decided On: Sep 13, 2025
Case Number: CRL.RP/668/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B N Ramesh

Respondent

Nagaraju

Excerpt

.....to receive the amount of rs.60,000/-(rupees sixty thousand only). learned counsel sri. sandeep a. states that he has been authorized by the complainant as well as by sri. b.j. mahesh, advocate for respondent to represent the complainant and to accept the demand draft.6. the joint memo filed shall be the part of the record. the aforesaid demand draft has been handed over to learned counsel sri. sandeep a. and he has acknowledged it on the order sheet.7. in view of the aforesaid and since therespondent/complainant has stated that he has no claim whatsoever in the future against the petitioner and the complainant/respondent does not intend to proceed with the case against the petitioner and further has requested to compound the offence. therefore, under the enabling provisions of section 147 of the negotiable instruments act 18811, the offence stands compounded inasmuch as full and final settlement as taken place between the parties.8. in view of the compromise entered between the parties, this revision petition is closed and the petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 138 of n.i. act. judge member bvk ni act

Full Judgment

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 CONCILIATORS PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI & SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, MEMBER CRL. R.P.No.668/2017 (Lok Adalat No.111/2025) BETWEEN B.N. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. NARASARAJU @ THAMMANNU, R/AT THYAGARAJA MOHALLA, BANNUR TOWN, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 101. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.NATARAJU, Advocate) AND NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE HONNEGOWDA, WORKING AS BROKER IN J.K. TYRES LTD. K.R.S. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 016. …..RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHESH B.J. (NOC), ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 (1) R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37/2016 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.01.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC, III COURT AT MYSURU IN C.C.NO.499/2015 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED.

CONCILIATION ORDER

The petitioner is present in person along with his advocate Sri. P. Nataraju.

2. Sri. P. Nataraju. identified the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

4. The petitioner and the respondent along with their

respective counsel have filed a joint memo for settlement for an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) by way of demand draft bearing D.D.No.038487 dated 12.09.2025 drawn in favour of the respondent.

5. The proxy counsel of the complainant/respondent

Sri. Sandeep A. enrolment No. KAR/5194/2024 is present who says that he has instructions to receive the amount of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand Only). Learned counsel Sri. Sandeep A. states that he has been authorized by the complainant as well as by Sri. B.J. Mahesh, Advocate for respondent to represent the complainant and to accept the demand draft.

6. The joint memo filed shall be the part of the record. The aforesaid demand draft has been handed over to learned counsel Sri. Sandeep A. and he has acknowledged it on the order sheet.

7. In view of the aforesaid and since the

respondent/complainant has stated that he has no claim whatsoever in the future against the petitioner and the complainant/respondent does not intend to proceed with the case against the petitioner and further has requested to compound the offence. Therefore, under the enabling provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 18811, the offence stands compounded inasmuch as full and final settlement as taken place between the parties.

8. In view of the compromise entered between the parties, this revision petition is closed and the petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. JUDGE MEMBER BVK NI Act

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties B N Ramesh vs Nagaraju Same Judge Lok Adalath