Dismissed

Valsala P.K v. Sajeev P.B.

Kerala HC25 Jun 2008Crl.Rev.Pet/787/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a Criminal Revision Petition challenging a conviction under Section 138 NI Act. The court recorded a composition (settlement) signed by the parties and dismissed the revision as the composition has the effect of an acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed following the recording of a composition which operated as an acquittal.

Valsala P.K Vs Sajeev P.B. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 787 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------------CRA.392/2005 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.163/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

T.K.VALSALA, W/O.K.K.CHANDRAN, KALLADA HOUSE, ASARI KUNNU, VELIYANNUR P.O., THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

¶13

SAJEEV.P.B., S/O.THERKAYIL BHASKARAN, KANIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR.

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.ROY VARGHESE

¶16

SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL.R.P.NO. 787/2008

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

ORDER ON Crl.M.A. NO.2409/2008 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 787/2008

¶21

DISMISSED

¶22

25.06.2008

¶23

sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶24

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶25

=====================

¶26

Crl.R.P. No. 787 of 2008

¶27

===================== Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2008.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The accused in ST. No.163 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her concurrently by the courts below.

¶30

Pending this revision, the parties have settled the matter. Crl.M.A.No. 6043 of 2008 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.

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2008.

¶33

V. RAMKUMAR,JUDGE.

¶34

Valsala P.K v. Sajeev P.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsala P.K v. Sajeev P.B.

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

C.a.Babu Vs Asma Hassankoyha

Jose Vs Excise Inspector, Nileswar

Sisu Bhavan Vs Joy Yohannan

O.Basheer Vs K.Mammu

K.S.Bindhu Vs G.Nalini

Jayantha a.Udyavar Vs Felix Vegus