Allowed

Anil Kumar G v. Vijayakumar

Kerala HC5 Jan 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/2/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed compounding of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the conviction and sentence in both criminal revision petitions were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

The offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were compounded; conviction and sentence set aside; and petitioner acquitted.

Anil Kumar G Vs Vijayakumar — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/15TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. NO.202/2011 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 04-04-2015. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST. NO.1113/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VIII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30-03-2011.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANIL KUMAR. G., S/O. GANGADHARAN, VANDANAM, KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

1. VIJAYA KUMARI, NANDINI GARDEN, FLAT NO.214D, WEST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, G. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, NANDINI GARDEN, FLAT NO.214-D, WEST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JESTIN MATHEW.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-01-2017, ALONG WITH CRL.RP. NO.3 OF 2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

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

Crl.R.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2017

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2017

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard Sri.M.P.Liju, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners (accused) in these cases, Sri.A.S.Shammy Raj, learned Advocate for R-1 (complainant) and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Prosecutor, appearing for R-2 State.

¶23

Crl.R.P.No. 2/2017 has been filed to impugn the conviction and sentence of the petitioner accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as per the impugned judgment dated 30.3.2011 in S.T.No.1113/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram (as affirmed by the impugned judgment dated 4.4.2012 in Crl.Appeal No.202/2011 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram).

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.3/2017 has been filed by the petitioner accused to impugn and the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as per the

¶25

: 2 :-

¶26

impugned judgment dated 31.7.2012 in S.T.No.1082/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram (as affirmed by the impugned judgment dated 4.4.2012 in Crl.Appeal No.442/2012 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram).

¶27

The accused and the complainant in both the matters are the same and the cases have been disposed of by separate judgments of the courts below.

¶28

Now it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner accused as well as by the learned counsel appearing for complainant (R-1) in both these cases that the matter has been settled out of court and that as against the total fine amounts/ compensation amount of Rs.7 lakhs in both cases, the 1^st respondent has agreed to accept an amount of Rs.4.45 lakhs in full and final settlement of the petitioner's liability in both the cases and that the 1^st respondent (complainant) has no objection for the grant of the prayers in these revision petitions. Further both sides would

¶29

also submit that the offences in these matters could be compounded by invoking the enabling powers under Sec. 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Sec.147 of the Negotiable

¶30

: 3 :-

¶31

Instruments Act and in that regard, the parties have filed joint petition for compounding of the offences in both these cases. The joint petitions filed in these cases filed as Crl.M.A.No.1/2017 in Crl.R.P.No.2/2017 and Crl.M.A.No.2/2017 in Crl.R.P.No.3/2017) which read as follows:

¶32

Crl.M.A.No.1/2017 in Crl.R.P.No.2/2017:

¶33

“The above criminal revision petition was filed against the conviction by the courts below in ST No.1113/2006, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram, which was confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.202/2011 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Now the entire disputes between the parties are amicably settled and they have no further grievances or claims against each other in future also.

¶34

Therefore it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose of the above criminal revision petition by acquitting the rev. petitioner on the basis of compromise between the parties herein, for the ends of justice.”

¶35

Crl.M.A.No.2/2017 in Crl.R.P.No.3/2017:

¶36

“The above criminal revision petition was filed against the conviction by the courts below in ST No.1082/2006, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram, which was confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.442/2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Now the entire disputes between the parties are amicably settled and they have no further grievances or claims against each other in future also.

¶37

¶38

The learned Prosecutor appearing for the 2^nd respondent

¶39

: 4 :-

¶40

State has no objection for compounding of the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by virtue of the enabling powers conferred on this Court. Accordingly, it is ordered that the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in both these criminal proceedings will stand compounded as prayed for, and consequently it is ordered that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for the abovesaid offence as per the above referred impugned judgments will stand set aside and the petitioner will stand acquitted of the said offence.

¶41

It is also pointed out by both sides that pursuant to the interim order dated 3.1.2017 passed by this Court in these matters, the petitioner/accused has already been released from prison.

¶42

In the light of these aspects, both the Crl.R.Ps. will stand finally disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

sdk+

¶45

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶46

///True Copy///

¶47

P.S. to Judge

Anil Kumar G v. Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar G v. Vijayakumar

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

Madhavi Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Joseph Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

V.K Abraham Vs the District Collector

C.C.Thomas Vs Paulson K.George

M.P.George Vs Domanic P.A.

Usha Kumari Vs Johnson