Disposed

V.Ganesan v. S.Ramanathan

Madras HC8 Dec 2020CRL A(MD)/168/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. challenging an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case was disposed of. The court noted that the proceedings were amicably resolved with the accused paying Rs.9,00,000/- and the complainant accepting it as full settlement. Consequently, the appeal lacks significance and no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was recorded as disposed of; no interference with the acquittal.

V.Ganesan Vs S.Ramanathan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2014

¶7

V.Ganesan ... Appellant/Respondent/Complainant

¶8

¶9

S.Ramanathan ... Respondent/Appellant/Accused

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment of Acquittal dated 11.12.2013 made in C.A.No.41 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, setting aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.08.2013 made in STC No.801 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, allow this criminal appeal.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.V.Janakiramulu

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasundaram

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶15

2.The petitioner is the complainant in S.T.C.No.801 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai. It is a case arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case ended in conviction and sentence vide Judgment dated 26.08.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed C.A.No.41 of 2014 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. Vide Judgment dated 11.12.2013, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, this appeal came to be filed at the instance of the complainant.

¶16

3.During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter had been amicably resolved. The respondent is said to have paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and the appellant Mr.V.Ganesan had accepted the same towards full and final settlement. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication. The acquittal of the accused need not be interfered with or disturbed.

¶17

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

¶18

1/2

¶19

Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2014

¶20

3.Recording the memo filed by the respondent, this Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AD-II) /True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS- )

¶23

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai. 2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy. 3.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 4.The Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy. Copy to: The Section Officer. Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai (2 copies) Crl.A(MD)No.168 of 2014 08.12.2020 rmi PK/07.01.2021 : 2P/7C

¶24

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

¶25

2/2

V.Ganesan v. S.Ramanathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ganesan v. S.Ramanathan

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

Narasimhan Vs The Inspector of Police

Rani Vs The Inspector of Police

Rathidevi Vs S.Vadivel

Vava Bhuhardeen Vs Jai Sankar

Chandralekha Vs The Inspector of Police

Selvin Vs the Inspector of Police