Allowed

A.Santhana Krishnan v. S.E.Jayapal Chandran

Madras HC11 Aug 2017CRL RC/193/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against a confirming judgment in a cheque bouncing case. The court held that a settlement had been reached and the entire agreed amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- had been paid by the petitioner. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the offence compounded, the petitioner acquitted, and the fine and bail bonds

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision allowed; offence under Section 138 compounded; petitioner acquitted; fine refunded; bail bonds cancelled.

A.Santhana Krishnan Vs S.E.Jayapal Chandran — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated :11.08.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶6

Crl.R.C. No.193 of 2016

¶7

A.Santhana Krishnan
...Petitioner
Versus
S.E.Jayapal Chandran
...Respondent
The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C
read with 401 Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by learned IV
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.180 of 2014
dated 15.04.2015 confirming the sentence passed in C.C.No.178 of
2013 dated 31.10.2014 by the learned Fast Track Judge-II (Magistrate
Level), Coimbatore and seeks to set aside the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Madhumathi For Respondent : Mr.L.Mouli

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment passed by learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

C.A.No.180 of 2014 dated 15.04.2015 confirming the sentence passed in C.C.No.178 of 2013 dated 31.10.2014 by the learned Fast Track Judge-II (Magistrate Level), Coimbatore.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

¶15

Learned counsel on either side informed of the settlement arrived at between parties and that the respondent/complainant has received payment in a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- under three Demand Drafts vide D.D.No.994172 dated 25.07.2017 in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, D.D.Nos.604933, 604934 dated 24.07.2017 in sums of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- drawn at City Union Bank Limited. The said Demand Drafts represent payment of a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent acknowledges the receipt of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- earlier. Thus, the entire agreed sum of Rs.15,00,000/- stands paid by the petitioner/accused to the respondent/complainant. Both counsels have made an endorsement of

¶17

the settlement arrived at in the matter. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case shall stand allowed. The offence under section 138 of the

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

Negotiable Instrument Act shall stand compounded. Petitioner shall stand acquitted in the case. Fine amount, if any, paid by petitioner shall be refunded to him. Bail Bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.

¶21

11.08.2017
kmi
To
1. The IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2. The Fast Track Judge-II (Magistrate Level),
Coimbatore.

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.T. SELVAM, J.,

kmi

Crl. R.C. No. 193 of 2016
11.08.2017

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

A.Santhana Krishnan v. S.E.Jayapal Chandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Santhana Krishnan v. S.E.Jayapal Chandran

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

Murali Vs State Rep by

G.Ramasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Sasikaladevi Vs Rajendiran

Mani Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Dharmaraj Alias Vs the State Rep by

Saravanan Vs the Asst.Commissioner of