The Madras High Court allowed a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC. The petitioner, prosecuted for cheque dishonour, paid the amount and compounded the offence, leading the respondent to seek quashing of convictions.
The judgments of subordinate courts set aside and the criminal revision case allowed as the offence was compounded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.301 of 2016
BAIL SLIP
N.Sathish kumar, S/o.K.Nallusamy, Male, aged about 42/2016 is released on bail vide Court order dated 26.05.2016 made in Crl MP (MD)No.4054 and 4055 of 2016 in Crl RC(MD)No.301 of 2016.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.301 of 2016
N.Sathishkumar
... Petitioner /Appellant/Accused
Vs H.Pathrinath ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 16.02.2016 made in Crl.A.No.56 of 2015 on the file of the Mahila Court, Karur, modifying the Judgment made in S.T.C.No.606 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Karur, dated 07.07.2015 and allow the revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokul Raj For Respondent : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The revision petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent herein. The case initiated by the respondent ended in conviction. The same was put to challenge by filing the criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.56 of 2015 on the file of the Mahila Court, Karur. The Appellate Court, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence alone. The same was challenged in this revision case.
3.This Court indicated that since the petitioner is a Government servant, he ought to get the matter settled. Heeding to the suggestion given by this Court, the petitioner had approached the respondent and paid the amount in question and the issued has been amicably resolved.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states
1/4
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.301 of 2016
that the matter has been compounded. Since the offence itself has been compounded, the Judgments of the Court below are set aside and the criminal revision case is allowed. Since the offence has been compounded, the petitioner will not incur any disqualification.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AD II)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
rmi
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level, Karur.
2.The Mahila Court, Karur.
Crl.R.C(MD)No.301 of 2016 16.12.2020
mj(CO) KK(28.12.2020) 2P 3C
2/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the revision petition for quashing conviction when the offence has been compounded by the petitioner paying the amount.
Whether the petitioner will incur disqualification upon compounding of the Section 138 offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Sathishkumar
H.Pathrinath
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
