Allowed

M.J.Kuriakose v. Babu Puliammackal and Another

Kerala HC5 Sept 2016CRL.A/445/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court recorded a compromise agreement between parties in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon recording the consent under Section 147 of the NI Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offence was treated as compounded, and the respondent/appellant was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

The compromise is recorded. The offence is treated as compounded. The first respondent is acquitted.

M.J.Kuriakose Vs Babu Puliammackal and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/14TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

CRL.A.No. 445 of 2009 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Crl.L.P. 169/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26-02-2009

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 711/2005 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM DATED 26-06-2008

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.1/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

M.J.KURIAKOSE

¶10

MYKADOOR HOUSE, P.O.VELLAPPADU, PALAI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT P.O.EDANADU, PALAI-686 574.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT & RESPONDENT NO.2/ACCUSED:

¶13

1. ADV. BABU PULIAMMACKAL PULIAMMACKAL HOUSE, PAYYAVOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M. THOMAS.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶18

................................................................ Crl. Appeal No. 445 of 2009 ............................................................... Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2016

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.308/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kottayam which was a private complaint filed alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused in the case was convicted and sentenced by the said court through judgment dated 21.11.2005. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused in the case filed Crl.A.No.711/2005 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kottayam. The Additional Sessions Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence through the impugned judgment, and hence the appeal.

¶21

2. When this appeal came up for hearing both the

¶22

learned counsel for the appellant and the first respondent

¶23

Crl. Appeal No. 445 of 2009 -: 2 :-

¶24

have pointed out that the parties have settled the matter, and the entire disputes were settled by paying an amount of ₹2,48,000/- by the first respondent through a cheque to the appellant. The appellant has filed an affidavit affirming that he has received the amount involved and compromised the matter. The compromise has to be recorded under Section 147 of the N.I. Act.

¶25

In the result, the compromise entered into between the parties under Section 147 of the N.I. Act is hereby recorded and the offence is treated as compounded. The composition is accepted under Section 320(5) Cr.P.C. The composition has the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the composition is recorded and the first respondent is acquitted, within the meaning of Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C.

¶26

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶27

ul/-

¶28

// true copy // P.S. to Judge.

M.J.Kuriakose v. Babu Puliammackal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Kuriakose v. Babu Puliammackal 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

Raghavan Pillai Vs a.B.Sihabudeen & State of Kerala

Aravindakshan Vs the State of Kerala

Murukan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Kuruvilla Vs State of Kerala

Ullattil Agencies Vs the Malabar Food Processors(P)Ltd & 3 or