Allowed

S. Sheik Abdulla v. a. Gurusamy

Madras HC20 Dec 2019CRL RC(MD)/935/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal revision in a cheque bounced case where the parties had amicably settled the dispute. Recognizing the offence as compoundable, the court discharged the complainant from opposing the withdrawal and ordered the revision to be disposed of based on the settlement. The joint compromise memo was made part of the order. The appeal was set aside, and the respondent was acquitt

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties; the appellant was acquitted of the charge(s) convicted against him. The Joint Compromise Memo formed pa

S. Sheik Abdulla Vs a. Gurusamy — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.R.C(MD)No.935 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.12.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI Crl.R.C(MD)No.935 of 2019

¶3

S.Sheik Abdulla : Revision Petitioner/ Appellant/Accused

¶4

A.Gurusamy, Proprietor, M/s.Sundaravalli Textiles, T.Pillayar Kovil Street, Chettiarpatty, Dhalavaipuram-626 112. Virudhunagar District. : Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant

¶5

Prayer : Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhungar District at Srivilliputtur, in Crl.A No.173 of 2013, dated 17.09.2019, confirming the conviction and sentence of the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Srivilliputtur, in C.C.No.56 of 2013, dated 25.11.2013.

¶6

For Revision Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi

¶7

For Respondent : Mr.R.Manickam

¶8

J U D G M E N T

¶9

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, passed in Crl.A No.173 of 2013, dated 17.09.2019, confirming the conviction and sentence of the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Srivilliputtur, passed in C.C.No.56 of 2013, dated 25.11.2013.

¶10

2. The factual matrix of the case leading to filing of the present revision petition are as under :-

¶11

There was a business transaction between the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant and due to it, the petitioner has incurred debt of Rs.2,00,000/- and in order to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clear the debt, the petitioner has issued cheque No.612613, dated

¶12

1/3

¶13

Crl.R.C(MD)No.935 of 2019

¶14

13.12.2012 of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank and when the complainant presented the said cheque through SBI, Srivilliputhur branch, it was dishonoured as “Insufficient of funds ” and subsequently, in this regard, the complainant sent a legal notice on 11.03.2013 and after receipt of the same on 14.03.2013, the accused sent a reply on 18.03.2013 with false allegations. Hence, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short “The Act”) was filed.

¶15

3.The accused was summoned. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After completing trial, vide order, dated 25.11.2013, learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Srivilliputtur, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, appeal was preferred before the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur. The first appellate court had also confirmed the findings of the trial court. Aggrieved over the same, the present criminal revision has been filed.

¶16

4.On 20.12.2019, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the revision petitioner and the respondent along with their counsel appeared in person. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on either side that the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably and the respondent/complainant has no objection to set aside the entire proceedings. In this regard, a Joint Compromise Memo, dated 28.11.2019 has already been filed by the parties, which would run thus:-

¶17

“4.It is submitted that the appellate court dismissed the appeal on 17.09.2019 but within one month the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent was settled amicably. Accordingly, the petitioner paid an amount and the issue is settled between the parties. The offence on which the petitioner got convicted is a compoundable offence. In view of this fact, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the appellate court may be set aside. The respondent has no objection to set aside the conviction against the petitioner in C.C.No.56 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Srivilliputtur and the judgment confirming the conviction passed in Crl.A.No.173 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur.”

¶18

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

¶19

2/3

¶20

Crl.R.C(MD)No.935 of 2019

¶21

5.Keeping in view of the above fact, since offence under section 138 of the Act can be compounded at any stage of the proceedings and now, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, the parties are allowed to compound the offence and the revision petitioner be acquitted of the charge(s) convicted against him.

¶22

6.The criminal revision is accordingly disposed of in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. The Joint Compromise Memo, dated 29.11.2019 shall form part of the order.

¶23

Encl:Xerox copy of joint compromise memo

¶24

¶25

¶26

1.The Judicial Magistrate, (FTC), Srivilliputtur.

¶27

2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur.

¶28

+1 CC to Mr.S.MUNIYANDI, Advocate ( SR-106193[F] dated 20/12/2019 )

¶29

Judgment made in Crl.R.C(MD)No.935 of 2019 20.12.2019

¶30

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

¶31

3/3

S. Sheik Abdulla v. a. Gurusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Sheik Abdulla v. a. Gurusamy

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

Anton Victoriya Vs a.Ganeshwary@Blessy

A. Suba Sundari Vs The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate And Revenue Divisional Officer

P. Kandasamy Vs Balakrishnan

A.D. Arun Vs The Intelligence Officer

Thanesekaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Mohandass Vs The Inspector of Police