Dismissed

P.M.Sudheer v. M.P.Suresh

Kerala HC25 Jul 2007Crl.Rev.Pet/3260/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Revision Petitioner, convicted under Section 138 NI Act, filed a revision challenging his conviction. Pending the revision, the parties entered into a compromise. The court recorded the composition pursuant to Section 147 NI Act, held it to be an acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.PC, ordered refund of deposited money, and disposed of the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was disposed of; money deposited by the appellant was to be refunded to him.

P.M.Sudheer Vs M.P.Suresh — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2007 / 3RD SRAVANA 1929

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3260 of 2003(C)

¶6

------------------------------CRA.376/1998 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THALASSERY CC.622/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED.

¶8

¶9

P.M.SUDHEER, S/O.BALAN, SAKUNTHALA VYAVASAYA VANIJYA PRAKSHEPANA NILAYAM, MUZHAPPILANGAD P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.

¶12

¶13

M.P.SURESH, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PANNIYAN HOUSE, TALAP, KANNUR -2.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

¶20

Crl.R.P. NO. 3260 of 2003 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 25^th day of July 2007

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The accused in C.C. No. 622 of 1996 on th e file of the J.F.C.M-I, Kannur for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below.

¶23

Pending this revision, the parties have settled the matter. Crl.M.A 8022 of 2007 has been filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking permission to record the composition entered into between the revision petitioner and the complainant. The said petition has been signed by both the revision petitioner as well as the complainant and their respective counsels. In the light of this development, the aforementioned composition is recorded and it will have the effect of an acquittal of the revision petitioner within the meaning of Sec. 320 (8) Cr.P.C. Money, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner pursuant to the orders, if any, passed by the lower appellate court shall be refunded to the revision petitioner.

¶24

This Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above.

¶25

V. RAMKUMAR,

¶26

(JUDGE)

¶27

ani.

P.M.Sudheer v. M.P.Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Sudheer v. M.P.Suresh

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

K.P.Ahammed Kutty Vs P.M.Chacko

John Solomon Vs K.Sreekumar

Vinod Vs Peter

C.J.Edward Vs State of Kerala

Anantha Lakshmi Vs Malathy & State

G. Raju Vs Yohannan