Allowed

Chandran v. M.Meenakshi

Kerala HC5 Dec 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/3009/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioner, convicted under Section 138 NI Act, filed Crl.M.A. for compounding after settling the matter out-of-court with the complainant. High Court allowed compounding, imposed no penalty due to age, acquitted petitioner, and set aside impugned judgments.

What did the court decide?

Offence compounded under Section 320 CrPC; petitioner acquitted; impugned judgments set aside; bail bond cancelled; petitioner set at liberty.

Chandran Vs M.Meenakshi — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 3009 OF 2005

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2004 IN CC 102/2002 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

¶7

MAGISTRATE-III,PALAKKAD, CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD BY JUDGMENT DATED 28.05.2005 IN CRL.A 53/2004)

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

CHANDRAN, S/O CHERUKUTTY,
CHERUKUTTY NIVAS, CHORAKKODE, PERUVEMBA,, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1M.MEENAKSHI, W/O ARUMUGHAM,
THOTTAMPURA VEEDU, AKATHETHARA,, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD.
2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
*3SANTHI A
AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. SAHADEVAN, S.S. NILAYAM, THOTTAPURA,
AKATHETHARA P.O., PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT - 678008 (*ADDL. R3
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 7/11/2023 IN CRL.M.A.1/2023 IN
CRL.R.P 3009/2005)
*4SELVI A
AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. PRAKASH, SREEVIGNESWARA NIVAS, CHERAD,
MALAMPUZHA P.O.,PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT - 678651 (*ADDL. R4
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 7/11/2023 IN CRL.M.A.1/2023 IN
CRL.R.P 3009/2005)

¶12

*5BHAGYAM A
AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. PREMKUMAR, PRABEEN BHAVANAM, THOTTAPPURA,
AKATHETHARA P.O., PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT - 678008 (*ADDL. R5
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 7/11/2023 IN CRL.M.A.1/2023 IN
CRL.R.P 3009/2005)
BY ADV K.P.BALAGOPAL

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

P.P. SMT.NIMA JACOB

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl. R.P. No. 3009 of 2005

¶17

..2..

¶18

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.R.P. No. 3009 of 2005

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Dated this the 05^th day of December, 2023

¶24

This revision is at the instance of the accused in C.C. No.102

¶25

of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-III, Palakkad.

¶26

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced under

¶27

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the NI Act’), to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and compensation of Rs.46,000/- to the 1^st respondent/complainant, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The revision petitioner preferred Crl.Appeal No.53 of 2004 against the conviction and sentence. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the trial

¶28

court, against which he has preferred this revision.

¶29

Crl. R.P. No. 3009 of 2005

¶30

..3..

¶31

Pending revision, the 1^st respondent/complainant passed

¶32

away, and her legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5.

¶33

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the revision petitioner and additional respondents 3 to 5 filed Crl.M.A. No. 2 of 2023 for compounding the offence, as the matter has been settled between them, out of court. In Crl.M.A. No. 2 of 2023, it is stated that, the case has been settled between them and learned counsel for the

¶34

1^st respondent/complainant admitted before Court that the legal representatives of the 1^st respondent/complainant, i.e., additional respondents 3 to 5 received Rs.60,000/- in full and final settlement of their claim.

¶35

In the result, Crl.M.A. No. 2 of 2023 is allowed and the offence is compounded under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner is acquitted, and the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence rendered by the courts below are set aside.

¶36

Crl. R.P. No. 3009 of 2005

¶37

..4..

¶38

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that,

¶39

the revision petitioner is an age old man, suffering from various ailments, and so, he may not be penalised with the compounding fee as per the decision of the apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu

¶40

v. Sayed Babala H 2010 (2) KHC 428 )

¶41

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, and considering the age of the revision petitioner, this Court is not inclined to impose any penalty, while compounding the offence, though at a belated stage.

¶42

In the result, the offence is compounded, and the revision petitioner is acquitted under Section 320(8) of CrP.C. r/w Section 147 of the NI Act. His bail bond is cancelled and he is set at liberty forthwith.

¶43

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS

JUDGE

RMV

TRUE COPY

¶49

P.A.TO JUDGE

Chandran v. M.Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran v. M.Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisam @ Samenayi Vs State of Kerala

Leena M.N., Vs Vishnu M

Hyder Ali Vs Sudhakaran

Charlie Kolothe Vs Sudheer Khan

Gangadharan Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Kurian Vs State of Kerala