Allowed

Shabinesh Kumar v. Parasmal Lunavat and Another

Kerala HC21 Oct 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/3195/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition involving a cheque dishonour case was disposed of because the parties settled and jointly applied to compound the offence. The High Court allowed the settlement and acquitted the accused under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320(8) of the CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The rejection of the petition is recorded and the accused is acquitted under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Shabinesh Kumar Vs Parasmal Lunavat and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3195 of 2009

¶6

---------------------------------------CRL.A.NO.226/2005 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, KOZHIKODE, ST.NO.576/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (MARAD CASES) KOZHIKODE.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

SHABINESH KUMAR, S/O.KUNHAPPANODI, VADAKKENAMBRUTHUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.KAYANNA BAZAR, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.K.B.ARUNKUMAR.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. PARASMAL LUNAVAT, S/O.PADAMCHAND JAIN, PROPRIETOR, DOLPHIN FINANCIAL SERVICES, E K P COMPLEX, OPPOSITE PAICO, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY P.A.HOLDER, K.GIRISHAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, 'GREENS' NEAR WATER TANK P.O., PUTHIYARA, CALICUT.

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SMT.SMITHA SURESH, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

prv.

¶18

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.

¶19

CRL. R.P. NO. 3195 OF 2009

¶20

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner, who is the accused in S.T. No. 576 if 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Marad Cases), Kozhikode was prosecuted by the 1^st respondent alleging offence u/s. 138 of the Nogotiable Instruments Act. The trial court found the revision petitioner guilty. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months with direction to pay Rs. 18,140/- as compensation to the 1^st respondent. In default of payment of compensation the revision petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days also. Though an appeal was filed by the revision petitioner it was dismissed.

¶23

Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition was filed.

¶24

Revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent now settled the matter and filed a joint application as Crl.M.A No.9922 of 2009 seeking permission to compound the offence. Having heard either side, I find no reason to reject the petition. Hence, the

¶25

¶26

CRL. R.P. NO. 3195 OF 2009

¶27

petition is recorded and the revision petitioner is acquitted under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section

¶28

320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶29

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

¶30

P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE

¶31

pkk

Shabinesh Kumar v. Parasmal Lunavat and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabinesh Kumar v. Parasmal Lunavat and Another

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

P.v.Saju Vs Sulochana

Vimala Vs Usha Mohanan

Joshy N.N. Vs M/S.Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.

Sudheer Babu Vs Shaji

Dasappan Vs State of Kerala & Anr.

Rajeev V.R. Vs Sunithakumari and Another