Allowed

Chandramohanan v. P.G.Ramachandran Nair and Another

Kerala HC17 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/3836/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal revision petition by granting permission to compound an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that since the matter was settled between the parties and the requisite amount was deposited, the offence stood compounded with the effect of acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Permission to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was granted; the composition stands recorded with the effect of acquittal.

Chandramohanan Vs P.G.Ramachandran Nair and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3836 of 2009 ( ) ---------------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 561/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA DATED 26-08-2009

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 636/2006 of J.M.F.C.-I, CHENGANNUR, DATED 01-11-2008

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

CHANDRAMOHANAN,S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, VELLOR VEEDU,KURATTIKKADU MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA SRI.V.K.GANGADHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

P.G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SAMBARI VILLA,KURATTIKKADU MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE.

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SASIDHARAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

Crl.R.P. No. 3836 of 2009

¶17

Dated: 17^th October, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Crl.M.A. No. 6302 of 2016 has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner praying for granting permission to compound the offence. Crl.M.A. No. 6301 of 2016 has been jointly filed by the petitioner and the first respondent herein, who is the complainant before the trial court, praying for recording the composition.

¶20

Since the matter has been settled between the parties, this Court directed the revision petitioner to deposit Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) before the Kerala State Legal Service Authority as a condition precedent to grant permission to compound the offence and produce the receipt as held by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the revision petitioner deposited Rs. 1000/-

¶21

-: 2 :-

¶22

Crl.R.P. No. 3836 of 2009

¶23

before the Kerala State Legal Service Authority on 14-102016 and produced the receipt before this Court.

¶24

After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the above applications have been filed by the parties on the reason that the matter has been settled between the parties. Section 138 of the N.I.Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I. Act. Since matter has been settled between the parties, it is only just and proper to grant permission to compound the offence. Accordingly, permission stands granted and the composition stands recorded, which is having the effect of acquittal under Section 320 (8) of the Code.

¶25

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed, acquitting the revision petitioner under Section 320 (8) of the Code.

¶26

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶27

ani/

Chandramohanan v. P.G.Ramachandran Nair and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramohanan v. P.G.Ramachandran Nair 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

Ameen.v.P. Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor Abdullah Vs the State of Kerala

Rafi Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sreekanth Vs State of Kerala

Chenthamara Vs State of Kerala