Allowed

Kishor T.P v. M/S Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.

Kerala HC11 Jun 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1271/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition. A compromise was reached between the convicted revision petitioner and the complainant lender. Finding the offence under Section 138 NI Act compoundable, the court set aside the conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence in S.T.No. 19 of 2009 are set aside and the offence is compounded.

Kishor T.P Vs M/S Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/21ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1271 of 2012 ------------------------------IN ST.19/2009 of J.M.F.C. - II, N.PARAVUR

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶7

KISHOR T.P, AGED 45 YEARS, THEKKINEDATH HOUSE NEDUNGAD NAYARAMBALAM P.O.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS VARGHESE.K

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶10

M/S MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD N.PARAVUR BRANCH, ADAM PLAZA NEAR MUNICIPAL OFFICE N.PARAVUR REP. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER MR.GEO JACOB. 2. KERALA STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL VARGHESE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Biju Meenatoor

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶12

ON 11-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ===========================

¶14

CRL. R.P. NO. 1271 of 2012

¶15

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

¶16

Dated this the 11^th day of June 2012

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The accused in S.T.No. 19 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial

¶19

First Class Magistrate Court-II, North Paravur is the revision petitioner. There is concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition has been filed in the said circumstances.

¶20

Notice was sent to the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent

¶21

entered appearance. Now, the petitioner and the 1^st respondent brought on record a compromise. Criminal M.A. No. 4328/2012 filed jointly by them would reveal that the case that led to the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner has been compromised between them and therefore, the 1^st respondent is not intending to prosecute the revision petitioner. I am satisfied that the 1^st respondent has volunteered to compound the offence against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable

¶22

CRL. R.P. NO. 1271 of 2012 #2#

¶23

Instruments Act. In terms of the provisions under section 138, an offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable. In the said circumstances, the offence under section 138 against the revision petitioner is compounded. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner in S.T.No. 19 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, North Paravur which were confirmed by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur in Criminal Appeal No. 233/2010 are set aside. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶24

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

¶25

kvr/

Kishor T.P v. M/S Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor T.P v. M/S Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.

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.Jayendran Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Vs Aboobacker

T.M. Jayachandran Vs Sri. K.G.Mohanlal

Arjunan Vs State of Kerala

Omanakuttan Vs Girish Kumar

Girish Babu Vs the State of Kerala