Allowed

Archana v. Harikumar C.J.

Kerala HC13 Jan 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/760/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the high court accepted a joint petition filed by the parties to compound the offence. Consequently, the impugned conviction and sentence were set aside and the petitioner was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compounded; the conviction and sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted.

Archana Vs Harikumar C.J. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/23RD POUSHA, 1938 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 760 of 2012 ()

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 114/2011 of ADDL. DIST. COURT (ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 25-11-2011

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 114/2009 of J.M.F.C.,RANNI DATED 15-06-2011

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONERE/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

ARCHANA S., W/O. BIJU, KOTTUPPALLIL HOUSE, CHERUKULANJI MURI, VADASSERIKKARA, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANAT : ----------------------------

¶11

1. HARIKUMAR C.J., CHITAYIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689672.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.JEPH JOSEPH

¶14

R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAIGI JACOB PALETTY

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

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

Crl.R.P.No. 760 of 2012

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2017

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The aforecaptioned Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner accused for impugning the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as per the judgment dated 15.6.2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ranny, in S.T.No.114/2009 (as affirmed by the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2011 of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, in Crl.Appeal No.114/2011).

¶24

Heard Sri.V.Philip Mathews, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner accused, Sri.Jeph Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent complainant and Sri.Justin Joseph, learned Prosecutor appearing for the 2^nd respondent State.

¶25

Sri.V.Philip Mathews, learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

revision petitioner accused and Sri.Jeph Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent complainant submit that the parties have settled the entire disputes between them and that they

¶27

Crl.R.P.760/12 - : 2 :-

¶28

have now filed a joint petition as Crl.M.A.No.162/2017 so as to compound the offence and for the consequential acquittal of the petitioner accused. It is pointed out by Sri.Philip Mathews, learned counsel for the petitioner accused that the petitioner had faced acute financial difficulties and therefore he could not earlier take effective steps for compromising the matter. In the light of the abovesaid submission made by learned Advocates appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer for compounding of the offence could be considered. The joint petition for compounding the offence filed as per Crl.M.A.No.

¶29

162/2017 in this Crl.R.P. reads as follows:

¶30

“PETITION FOR COMPOUNDING THE OFFENCE FILED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AND SECTION 320 OF THE Cr.P.C.

¶31

The disputes between the Petitioner/Accused and the first respondent/complainant have been settled out of court. First respondent has no grievances against the petitioner/Accused. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to accept the compromise, compound the offence against the petitioner and acquit the Petitioner/accused.

¶32

Dated this the 5^th respondent day of January, 2017.

¶33

Sd/- Archana Petitioner/Accused	Sd/- Harikumar.C.J. First respondent/ Complainant
Sd/-	Sd/-
Counsel for the Petitioner	Jeph Joseph,
P.Philip Mathews”	Counsel for the 1^strespondent.”

¶34

Crl.R.P.760/12 - : 3 :-

¶35

In the light of these aspects, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act alleged against the petitioner in the above matter will stand compounded and consequentially, the impugned conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner as per the judgments of the courts below will stand set aside and consequentially, the petitioner will stand acquitted of the abovesaid offence.

¶36

With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Criminal Revision Petition stands finally disposed of.

¶37

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶38

///True Copy///

¶39

P.S. to Judge

Archana v. Harikumar C.J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana v. Harikumar C.J.

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

Satheesh Kumar K Vs Sheelavathi

Usha Kumari Vs Johnson

M.P.George Vs Domanic P.A.

Josekutty John Vs Shaiju P.Joseph

Sri.K.v.Viswanathan Vs Sri.Berny Francis

Viswan V.P. Vs Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Ltd.