Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Mahesh Dand, filed two criminal revision petitions under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging judgments and orders passed by lower courts in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitions were directed against the judgment dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-VII, Bangalore City in Criminal Appeal No. 840/2008 and the order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C. No. 20529/2005 (Annexure-A and B), and the judgment dated 24.06.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IX, Bangalore City in Criminal Appeal No. 841/2008 and the order passed by the XXI ACMM, Bangalore in C.C. No. 22227/2005 (Annexure-A and B). During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petitions on the ground that the matters had been settled out of court. The Court, noting the memo, dismissed both revision petitions as withdrawn.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Withdrawal of Petition - Settlement - The petitioner filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the revision petitions since the matters were settled out of Court. The Court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the petitions as withdrawn. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision petitions should be allowed to be withdrawn in view of settlement between parties
Final Decision
The revision petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
Law Points
- Withdrawal of revision petitions
- settlement out of court
- dismissal as withdrawn
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (01) 20
CRL.R.P.NO.1214/2010 and CRL.R.P.NO.1215/2010
Justice Pradeep D. Waingankar
Sri A Gopiprakash (for petitioner), Sri M S Ashwin Kumar and Sowmya M. Kumar (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petitions challenging judgments and orders in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the lower courts
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the judgments and orders passed by the lower courts in criminal appeals and original proceedings
Previous Decisions
The lower courts had passed judgments and orders which were challenged in these revision petitions
Issues
Whether the revision petitions should be allowed to be withdrawn in view of settlement between parties
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petitions since the matters were settled out of Court
Ratio Decidendi
When parties settle a matter out of court, the court may permit withdrawal of the revision petitions and dismiss them as withdrawn.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petitions since the matters are settled out of Court. In view of the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the revision petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed two criminal revision petitions under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 CrPC challenging judgments and orders of lower courts. During hearing, counsel sought withdrawal due to settlement. Court dismissed petitions as withdrawn.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397(1), 401
