Partly allowed

K.a.Cheriyan v. M/S.Asian Investments

Kerala HC8 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/914/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a conviction for cheque dishonour but filed a motion reporting out-of-court settlement. The High Court permitted compounding of the offence and treated the settlement as acquittal, disposing of the revision.

What did the court decide?

Permission to compound the offence allowed; composition accepted with effect of acquittal; revision petition disposed.

K.a.Cheriyan Vs M/S.Asian Investments — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931

¶4

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 914 of 2003(B) -----------------------------CRA.53/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.100/1994 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶6

¶7

K.A.CHERIYAN, KARIMGANAMPOYKAYIL, S.N.PURAM P.O., PAMPADY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶10

¶11

M/S ASIAN INVESTMENTS, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, CSI SQUARE BUILDING, SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

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

¶13

ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R1

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.914 of 2003

¶18

Dated this 08^th day of July 2009

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Crl. Appeal No. 53 of 2000 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”)

¶21

Petitioner and respondent No.1 filed Crl.M.A.No.6406 of 2009 reporting settlement and seeking permission to compound the offence.

¶22

It is seen from Crl.M.A.No.6406 of 2009 that parties have settled the dispute out of court. There is no reason to think that the composition is not voluntary. Offence under Sec.138 of the Act is made compoundable under Sec.147 of the Act. Hence permission is granted and Crl.M.A.No.6406 of 2009 is allowed. The composition entered between petitioner and respondent No.1 is accepted and that shall have the effect of acquittal of petitioner under Sec.320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision Petition is disposed of as above.

¶23

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶24

Sbna/

K.a.Cheriyan v. M/S.Asian Investments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Cheriyan v. M/S.Asian Investments

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.a.Cheriyan Vs M/S.Asian Investments

M.Krishnankutty Vs a.Balan Nair and Another

Ramlath Vs Nasar & Ors.

Anitha Vs Kunjankutty

Rubco Huat Woods (P) Ltd. Vs Indranil Deb, the Proprietor

Aravindakshan Vs State of Kerala