Allowed

D.Anitha, Aged 43 Years, v. S.Gopalan

Madras HC16 Oct 2019CRL RC/790/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a criminal revision, allowed a compound petition filed by the parties after the compromise of a cheque dishonour case, set aside the accused's conviction and sentence, and ordered her acquittal.

What did the court decide?

CompOUND petition and revision petition allowed; accused acquitted; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bonds cancelled; compensation directed to Legal Service Authority.

D.Anitha, Aged 43 Years, Vs S.Gopalan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Bail Slip

¶3

The Appellant herein/Accused namely D.Anitha, D/o.Dhanraj, be and hereby is directed to be released on bail as per the order of this Court made in Crl.M.P.No.8949 of 2018 in Crl.RC.No.790 of 2018, dated 06.07.2018.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶5

DATED: 16.10.2019

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶8

Crl.RC.No.790 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.1542 of 2019 D.Anitha ..Petitioner / Accused Vs. S.Gopalan ..Respondent / Complainant

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment in Crl.A.No.28 of 2018 dated 28.03.2018 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode in confirming the judgment in S.T.C.No.332 of 2015 dated 02.01.2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Fast Track Court No.I), Erode.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan For Respondent : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

¶11

ORDER

¶12

During the pendency of the revision, the parties have filed a compound petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner / defacto complainant in the compound petition would submit that subsequent to the trial Court's conviction and confirmation by the appellate Court, the parties have compromised the matter due to the intervention of the well-wisher, the matter has been settled out of Court and that thereby, the petition for compound has been filed.

¶13

The revision petitioner / accused is present before this Court.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondent / complainant would submit that the respondent / complainant is unable to appear before this Court due to personal inconvenience. Further,

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

he would submit that he has been instructed that the matter has been settled.

¶18

Accordingly, the Compound petition and the Revision petition are allowed and the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compounded and the conviction and sentence impugned in S.T.C.No.332 of 2015 by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode dated 02.01.2018 and confirmed by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode in Crl.A.No.28 of 2018 dated 28.03.2018 are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the case. Consequent to the order, the bail bonds stands cancelled and the respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.70,000/- deposited to the credit of STC.No.332 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.

¶19

However, the revision petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/- to the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Erode, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶21

1.The First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode.

¶22

2.The Judicial Magistrate,

¶23

Fast Track Court No.I, Erode.

¶24

AKM/20.11.19/2P-3C /

¶25

Crl.RC.No.790 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.1542 of 2019

¶26

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

D.Anitha, Aged 43 Years, v. S.Gopalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Anitha, Aged 43 Years, v. S.Gopalan

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

P.Balasubramanian M/a 36 Years Vs

Ramu, S/O. Peria Karuppan, Vs State by the Inspector of

Fathima Mary Vs Pattenraj

Ilango,S/O. Athinamaligai, Vs K. Sinduja

D.Anitha, Aged 43 Years, Vs Ganthimathi

A.Subash Vs J.Aranganathan