Disposed

Annie Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/2275/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On settlement reported by a Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the High Court granted permission to compound an offence of cheating (Section 420 IPC) filed by the defacto complainant. The composition was accepted as voluntary, resulting in the effect of acquittal for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Permission to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC granted; Crl.M.A.No.6859 of 2009 allowed; composition accepted with effect of acquittal.

Annie Antony Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2275 of 2009

¶6

-----------------------------CCNO.90 OF 2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, CHALAKUDY CANO. 661 OF 2007 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK-II (ADHOC), THRISSUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

-------------------------------------ANNIE ANTONY,S/O.ANTONY, PARAKKADAS HOUSE,WEST CHALAKUDY, CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

¶10

SMT.P MAYA

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

ADV. SRI.ROY P.A.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J

¶18

Crl.R.P.No.2275 of 2009

¶19

Dated this 15^th day of July 2009

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.II, (Adhoc),Thrissur in Crl. Appeal No. 661 of 2007 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Sec. 420 of Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Petitioner and defacto complainant filed Crl.M.A.No.6859 of 2009 reporting settlement and seeking permission to compound the offence.

¶23

It is seen from Crl.M.A.No.6859 of 2009 that parties have

¶24

settled the dispute out of court. There is no reason to think that the composition is not voluntary. Offence under Sec.420 of the Code is compoundable with permission of the court. Hence permission is granted and Crl.M.A.No.6859 of 2009 is allowed. The composition entered between petitioner and defacto complainant is accepted and that shall have the effect of acquittal of petitioner under Sec.320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

Revision Petition is disposed of as above.

¶26

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶27

Sbna/

Annie Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annie Antony v. State of Kerala

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

Beena Vs State of Kerala

Jishi.P. Vs State of Kerala

Mathewkunju Mathew Vs Binoy Thomas and Sate of Kerala

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Moni P.K. Vs K.P.Ramesh

Kuttappan Vs Unnikrishnan and Another