Dismissed

A.Jayanth v. S.Veerakumar

Madras HC21 Feb 2022CRL RC/178/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the High Court set aside the impugned judgment regarding a Section 138 N.I. Act offence. The court was satisfied by the complainant's affidavit evidencing full settlement and reconciliation. Consequently, the petitioner was discharged and ordered for immediate release from prison.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner discharged of accusation and ordered for immediate release from prison; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

A.Jayanth Vs S.Veerakumar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.02.2022

¶3

CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶4

Crl.R.C.No.178 of 2022 amd Crl.MP.No.1709 of 2022

¶5

A.Jayanth

¶6

Vs.

¶7

S.Veerakumar .. Respondent / Respondent /Complainant

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Erode in S.T.C.No.87 of 2017 dated 08.12.2017 as confirmed by the judgment of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode in C.A.No.267 of 2018 dated 20.11.2019.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar

¶10

This matter arises out of an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The alleged offence is stated to be compounded and an affidavit of undertaking dated 20.12.2021 is filed by the respondent/complainant stating that he has received the amount and his dues are settled by the revision petitioner.

¶11

The respondent appeared on screen and he was identified by his learned counsel. He admitted that he had received his dues from the revision petitioner/accused.

¶12

This Court is satisfied with the affidavit filed by respondent/complainant. Since the revision petitioner is undergoing his sentence in a case for an offence under Section 138 of N.I Act, and that the complainant has filed an affidavit that he has received the amount due to him, the offence is compounded and the revision petitioner is discharged of the accusation made against him.

¶13

In conclusion, this revision petition is ordered and the revision petitioner is forthwith required to be released by the prison authorities – The Superintendent of Central Prison,

¶14

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

¶15

Coimbatore. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

ds To: 1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge Erode. 2.The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track No.I, Erode. 3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore. 4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104. +1cc to Mr.S.N.Arunkumar, Advocate, Sr.No.11213(23/02/2022)

¶20

Crl.R.C.No.178 of 2022

¶21

SJ(CO) KM(21/02/2022)

¶22

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

A.Jayanth v. S.Veerakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Jayanth v. S.Veerakumar

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

Brindha Vs K.T.Muthukumar

Ponnazhagu Vs State Rep by

S.Ganesan Vs M.Sathish

Appas Vs State Rep by

P.N.Peruvazhuthi Vs Jothi Ranga Reddy

S.Balasubramaniam Vs State Rep by