Allowed

Chandrasekar v. Govindarajan

Madras HC19 Jan 2022CRL MP/413/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque dishonour case where the accused was convicted and sentenced, the High Court allowed a petition for compounding. Relying on the settled agreement between parties where the accused paid the agreed sum, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the accused, and permitted the withdrawal of the deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

Compounding of the offence under Section 147 N.I. Act allowed; appellate conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; validity of compounding upholds the discharge.

Chandrasekar Vs Govindarajan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1193 of 2020

¶2

Crl.M.P.Nos.12673 of 2021 and 413 of 2022 in Crl.RC.1193 of 2020

¶3

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶4

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

¶5

The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the petitioner/accused introduced himself as big merchant dealing in Export and Import of agricultural products to local and foreign buyers and thereby induced the respondent/complainant to purchase maize and also promised to clear the purchase order within a period of two weeks. Based on the said words, the respondent/complainant supplied maize for the period from 23.07.2014 to 23.01.2015. The accused is liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,15,941/-, whenever, the respondent/complainant demanded the payment, the petitioner/accused sought time and thereafter, issued the following cheques (i)Cheque No.113657 dated 22.01.2015 for a sum of Rs.2,74,168/- (ii)Cheque No.113659 dated 22.01.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,08,854/- (iii)Cheque No.113660 dated 22.01.2015 for a sum of Rs.90,100/- and (iv)Cheque No.113656 dated 22.01.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,14,059/- all the cheques were drawn on the Tamil Nadu Mercantile

¶6

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

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.1193 of 2020

¶8

Bank, Namakkal. The cheques were presented by the

¶9

respondent/complainant through his Bank KVB, Armenian Street on 22.01.2015 and they were returned on 23.01.2015 with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the respondent/complainant had sent a legal notice to the petitioner/accused on 04.02.2015 through RPAD and the same was received by the accused on 06.02.2015. Despite receiving the legal notice, the accused had not sent any reply nor settled the amount. Hence, the respondent/complainant had filed CC.No.2381 of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai and the trial Court by an order dated 05.03.2019 and found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had convicted and sentenced to undergo ten months simple imprisonment and to pay the compensation of Rs.11,87,181/with an interest at 9%p.a. from the date of dishonour of cheque, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment, as against the order of conviction the petitioner/accused had preferred Crl.A.No.184 of 2019 before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, the appellate Court by a Judgment dated 21.02.2020 confirmed the judgment of

¶10

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

¶11

Crl.R.C.No.1193 of 2020

¶12

conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate Court the petitioner/accused has filed the criminal revision in Crl.RC.No.1193 of 2020 and this Court by an order dated 02.06.2021 made in Crl.MP.No.8262 of 2020 was pleased to grant suspension of sentence on condition, the petitioner to deposits a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- before the trial Court within two weeks.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that meanwhile the parties have agreed to settle the matter between themselves. Taking into consideration, the plight of the petitioner/accused, the respondent/complainant has agreed to compound the matter with the petitioner/accused and had agreed to settle the dispute for an amount of Rs.8,32,437/-, towards full quit, though the cheque amount is for Rs.11,87,181/- the petitioner/accused had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of cash, and he has also stated no objection for releasing the amount of Rs.2,37,437/- which has been deposited before the trial Court in favour of the respondent/complainant and the petitioner has also agreed to pay the

¶14

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

¶15

date.

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.1193 of 2020

¶17

balance amount of Rs.5,75,00/- to the respondent/complainant on a future date.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would further submit that as directed by this Court, the petitioner/accused had also drawn demand draft for a sum of Rs.41,600/- which is 5% of the agreed amount towards cost. He would pray that the compounding petition may be allowed.

¶19

The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit

¶20

that the parties are known to each other for longtime and they have agreed to settle the matter between themselves. The petitioner has agreed to receive a sum of Rs.8,32,437/- as full and final quit. The respondent/complainant has received an amount of Rs.20,000/- by way of cash and he has also agreed to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,37,437/- which is deposited before the trial Court and agrees to receive the balance amount of Rs.5,75,000/- in a future date. He would submit that the compounding petition may be allowed.

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.R.C.No.1193 of 2020

¶23

In view of the above, the offence stands compounded under

¶24

Section 147 of the N.I. Act and the judgment passed by the appellate Court in C.A.No.184 of 2019 dated 21.02.2020 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. The respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the deposit amount of Rs.2,37,437/- lying before the trial Court on filing necessary application and on production of proper proof.

¶25

The Registrar General, High Court Madras is directed to deposit

¶26

the demand draft of Rs.41,600/- bearing DD.No.797046 dated 30.12.2021 paid by the petitioner/accused towards costs.

¶27

In the result : -

¶28

(a) the criminal miscellaneous petition in Crl.MP.No.413 of 2022 is

¶29

ordered.

¶30

(b) the Crl.MP.No.12673 of 2020 is closed.

¶31

19.01.2022. (1/2)

¶32

tsh

¶33

Note : Original Demand Draft No. 797046 dated 30.12.2021 is enclosed herewith.

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.1193 of 2020

¶36

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶37

tsh

¶38

Crl.M.P.Nos.12673 of 2021 and 413 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.1193 of 2020

¶39

19.01.2022.

¶40

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

Chandrasekar v. Govindarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekar v. Govindarajan

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

Polo Knit Wear Vs a.Thiruppathi Raj

Mohankumar Vs Prakash

G.Sathishkumar Vs P.Saravanan

Ellappa Vs State Rep by

Ginjala Naga Appala Raju Vs State Rep by

Chandrasekar Vs Govindarajan