Partly allowed

T.Russel Raj v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Apr 2021CRL OP/4835/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition seeking mercy on a non-bailable warrant, the Court accepted the petitioner's request to compound a cheque dishonour offence after the accused deposited a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- as compensation, thereby quashing the appellate conviction and withdrawing the warrant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment was set aside, the offence was compounded under Section 147 NIAct, and the non-bailable warrant was withdrawn.

T.Russel Raj Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021
T.Russel Raj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police,
E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018. ...1 st respondent /Respondent
2. Mrs.Shoba Rao ...2 nd Respondent / Accused

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶8

Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1^st respondent to

¶9

secure the accused in C.A.No.972 of 2019 on the file of XVI

¶10

Additional Sessions Court, Chennai against the Accused Mrs.Shoba

¶11

Rao, in C.C.No.543 of 2010, pending on the file of the FTC-I,

¶12

Page No.1/8

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶14

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021

¶15

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore (Allikulam), Chennai.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Rajan For Respondents : Mr.Mommahed Riyaz Additional public prosecutor for R1 Mr.K.Prakash for R2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to

¶19

the respondent police to execute the non-bailable warrant issued

¶20

by the Court below while convicting the 2^nd respondent for an

¶21

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶22

2.When the matter came up for hearing on 29.03.2021,

¶23

Mr.K.Prakash, representing the accused person / 2^nd respondent

¶24

submitted that the 2^nd respondent is willing to compromise this matter and she will settle the amount fixed by this Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent therefore sought for compounding the offense on settlement of

¶25

the amount fixed by this Court.

¶26

Page No.2/8

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶28

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021

¶29

Mr.Sathiamoorthy, learned counsel appearing on

¶30

behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court had reversed the judgement of the Trial Court and had sentenced the 2^nd respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation which is twice the cheque amount and it works out to a sum of Rs.5,15,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been prosecuting this case from the year 2010 onwards and therefore, the petitioner would leave the discretion to this Court in fixing the compensation amount

¶31

payable by the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

This Court on considering the materials available on

¶33

record and also after hearing the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, thought it fit to fix the compensation amount of Rs.4,15,000/-. This Court directed the

¶34

learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent to take instructions and

¶35

Page No.3/8

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶37

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021

¶38

report compliance before this Court.

¶39

5.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the

¶40

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent submitted that a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- was handed over to the

¶41

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by way of a demand draft. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also acknowledged the said fact.

¶42

The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent have also filed

¶43

a joint Memo of compromise and the same is taken on file. It is stated in the compromise Memo that the petitioner has received

¶44

the amount in full quit and there are no other claims against the 2^nd respondent and that the offence can be compounded by this Court under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The relevant portion in the Memo of compromise is extracted

¶45

hereunder :-

¶46

Page No.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶47

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021

¶48

The 1^st party pays a sum of Rs.4,15,000/-

¶49

by two Demand Draft 1. D.D.No.178460 of Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Chennai of Rs.2,50,000/-

¶50

& 2. Demand Draft No.161116 of State Bank of India, Broadway Branch, of Rs.1,65,000/- to the

¶51

2^nd party, which is acknowledged by the 2^nd party

¶52

in full and final quit against all claims of any nature against the 1^st party and her husband.

¶53

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the subsequent development that has taken

¶54

place, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482

¶55

of Cr.PC is hereby setting aside the judgement of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai, made in C.A.No.97 of 2019 dated 20.12.2019 and the offence is

¶56

compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In view of the same, the non-bailable warrant issued

¶57

Page No.5/8

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶59

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021

¶60

against the 2^nd respondent shall stand withdrawn. The Memo of

¶61

compromise shall form part and parcel of this order. The learned

¶62

Additional Public Prosecutor shall instruct the 1^st respondent

¶63

about this development.

¶64

This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with
the above directions.
01.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes.
rka

¶65

Page No.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶66

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021

¶67

¶68

The Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai,

¶69

The Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

¶70

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶71

Page No.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶72

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021

¶73

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.,

¶74

rka

¶75

Crl.OP.No.4835 of 2021

¶76

01.04.2021

¶77

Page No.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

T.Russel Raj v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Russel Raj v. the Inspector of Police

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

K.Gokulakannan Vs State Rep.

The Inspector of Police, Vs Balaraman

C.Tamilarasu Vs State Rep.by

S.Kamal Chand, Aged 37 Years, Vs Sushmitha @ Payal Kumari

Kanniyappan Vs State Rep.by Its

Santhosh Vs the State Rep.by