Allowed

R.Madhiyalagan v. P.Udayasundar

Madras HC6 Nov 2015CRL RC/886/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against convictions under Section 138 NI Act. Since the matter was settled, the Court recorded compounding under Section 147 NI Act, acquitted the petitioner, refunded the fine, and permitted the withdrawal of recovered funds by the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner acquitted; offence compounded under Section 147 NI Act; fine refunded; respondent permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/-.

R.Madhiyalagan Vs P.Udayasundar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

Bail Slip

¶2

The Appellant/Accused Viz., R.Madhiyalagan, S/o.Ramasamy, aged about 43 years, was directed to be released on bail, as per order of this court dated 24/08/2015 in Crl.MP.No.1 of 2015 in Crl.R.C.No.886 of 2015.

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.886 of 2015 R.Madhiyalagan S/o.Ramasamy ..Petitioner Vs P.Udayasundar S/o.Perumal ..Respondent

¶5

Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, passed in C.A.No.128 of 2014 dated 23.06.2015 confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Salem, passed in C.C.No.295 of 2012 dated 01.10.2014.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Esakkiappan For Respondent : Mr.R.Jaya Prakash

¶7

This revision is preferred against two concurrent judgments of Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to 1 year S.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d. 1 month S.I.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

¶9

Learned counsel on either side inform that the matter stands settled and as such the compounding of offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be recorded in keeping with section 147 of such Act. The affidavit of respondent/complainant supports such contention.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

In the circumstance, this Court allows this petition. The offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act tried in C.C.No.295 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Salem, shall stand compounded. Petitioner shall stand acquitted from all charges in the case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.

¶12

"The Court below shall permit the respondent/complainant to withdraw sums of Rs.1,00,000/- lying to the credit of C.C.No.295 of 2012."*

¶13

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
dt. 07.12.2015
Corrected as per order
dt.10.12.2015 & made herein
//True Copy//
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
dt. 22.12.2015
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Salem.
Substituted to the order
2. The Judicial Magistrate II, already despatched on 6.11.15
Salem.
3. -do- Thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate Salem.
+1 C.C. To MR.A.Esakkiappan, Advocate in SR.NO. 66431
Crl.R.C.No.886 of 2015
CA(CO)
sd : 08/12/2015
Eu 22.12.2015

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Madhiyalagan v. P.Udayasundar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Madhiyalagan v. P.Udayasundar

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

Mrs.P.S.Shubana @ Shobana Vs v.Chitti Babu

Anbalazhagan Vs Kodiyarasi

Arulmighu Omsakthi Muthalmman Vs Murali Sundaram

Fr.Ceyrac Children`S Trust Vs Panchatsaram

Hasan Ali Vs Mustaq Ahmed

R.Selvaraj Vs the Deputy Superintendent of