Disposed

K.P.Anantharaman v. P.R.Ashokan

Kerala HC25 Jan 2016CRL.A/1672/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the criminal appeal filed by the complainant against an appellate order acquitting the accused. The court noted a private complaint was filed under Section 420 IPC regarding a bounced cheque. The parties settled via mediation and filed a compromise memo. The court allowed the compromise under Section 320 Cr.P.C., effectively granting leave to compound the offence, result

What did the court decide?

Leave to compound the offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C. allowed; Crl.M.A.No.448/2016 allowed.

K.P.Anantharaman Vs P.R.Ashokan — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1672 of 2004 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.Appeal No.59/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM DATED 07-04-2004

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 338/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRTE COURT,KOTTAYAM DATED 17-01-2003

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT::

¶9

K.P.ANANTHARAMAN, AKKARAMADOM,

¶10

THIRUVARPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED & STATE OF KERALA::

¶13

1. P.R.ASHOKAN, PARAPPEL HOUSE, THIRUVARPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU,

¶16

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N. SURESH

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

acd

¶19

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶20

Crl.Appeal No.1672 of 2004

¶21

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This appeal is preferred by the complainant against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.59/2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. He filed a private complaint C.C.No.338/2002 against the accused alleging offence punishable u/s.417 IPC

¶24

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. The complainant's case is that the accused borrowed a sum of ₹3,50,000/- from him and in discharge of that debt, he issued a cheque. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient and signature differs. Complainant demanded the amount by giving a notice in writing to the accused but he sent a reply notice, in which it was

¶25

stated that he is not maintaining any account in the Village Co-

¶26

Crl.A. No.1672/2004

¶27

¶28

operative Bank, Thiruvarppu. On enquiry, it was revealed that the accused issued the cheque from the account of his wife.

¶29

In the circumstances, the above complaint.

¶30

During trial, the complainant examined three witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P6. The learned Magistrate framed a charge, thereafter witnesses were recalled and reexamined in the trial Court. The incriminating circumstances

¶31

brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused u/s.420 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of 3,55,000/-, in default of payment of fine,₹ rigorous imprisonment for six months. Against that, the accused preferred an appeal in which he was acquitted by the appellate Court. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.

¶32

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned

¶33

Crl.A. No.1672/2004 3

¶34

counsel appearing for the appellant contended that they have settled the matter out of Court due to the intervention of mediators and no grievance subsists. Both parties filed Crl.M.A.No.448/2016 in which the appellant, the 1^st respondent and both counsel signed and submitted that no grievance subsists. According to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when an offence punishable specified in the first two columns of the Table be compounded by the person mentioned in the third column. Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending by the persons mentioned in the third column. Both parties stated that they have settled the matter with the intervention of the mediators during the pendency of the appeal. Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. says composition of the offence shall be allowed with the leave of the Court. Hence, leave is granted to compound the offence and Crl.M.A.No.448/2016 is allowed.

¶35

Crl.A. No.1672/2004

¶36

¶37

The composition of the offence shall have the effect of an

¶38

acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.

¶39

Hence this appeal is disposed of as compromised.

¶40

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶41

acd

¶42

Crl.A. No.1672/2004 5

K.P.Anantharaman v. P.R.Ashokan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Anantharaman v. P.R.Ashokan

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

Karthikeyan Vs State of Kerala

George Vs Excise Inspector

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Gopi Vs Excise Range Inspector

Velutha Vs S.I.of Police