Allowed

M.P.Raghunathan v. K.Pratheesh

Kerala HC17 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/679/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a criminal revision petition against a conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Upon finding that the offence was compoundable and the parties had settled, the court compounded the offence, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The offence is compounded, the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the accused is acquitted and set at liberty.

M.P.Raghunathan Vs K.Pratheesh — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 679 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRL.APPEAL 482/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY ST 7258/2005 of J.M.F.C.-II, KANNUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

M.P.RAGHUNATHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR,

¶9

AGED 53 YEARS, UMMU HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNAN

¶11

SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

K.P.PRATHEESH, S/O.K.PRABHAKARAN,, AGED 29 YEARS KIZHAKKEPATH HOUSE, PAPPINISERI WEST KANNUR TALUK & DISTRICT

¶14

STATE FO KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI THOMAS J. AMBOOKEN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.679 of 2013

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 17^th day of March 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in S.T.C. No.7258 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kannur challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'). The cheque amount was 1,18,000/-. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of 1,18,000/- to the complainant in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In Crl. Appeal No.482 of 2006 filed before The

¶23

:2:

¶24

Crl.R.P. No.679 of 2013

¶25

Sessions Court, Thalassery, the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified and the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment three months and to pay a compensation of `1,18,000/- to the complainant in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶26

During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner/accused and the first respondent/complainant filed Crl.M.Appln.No.168 of 2014 for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act stating that they have settled all their disputes. The revision petitioner deposited `3,000/- before the High Court Legal Services Committee towards compounding costs. Since the matter is amicably settled between the parties, Crl.M.Appln.No.168 of 2014 is allowed and permission is

¶27

Crl.R.P. No.679 of 2013

¶28

:3:

¶29

granted to compound the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

¶30

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compounded and the conviction and sentence against the accused in S.T.C. No.7258 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kannur under Section 138 of the NI Act is set aside and the accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and set at liberty. The first respondent/ complainant is allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the accused before the trial court.

¶31

Sd/- M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶32

dl/

¶33

// TRUE COPY //

M.P.Raghunathan v. K.Pratheesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Raghunathan v. K.Pratheesh

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

Lalu Vs Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station

K.Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Susan George Vs State of Kerala

Gopi Vs State of Kerala

P.N. Prakash Vs K.M. Rajendra & Another

S.Gopakumar Vs Ashok Kumar.v.