Allowed

T.Selvakumar v. S.Sathyabalan

Madras HC3 Jan 2022CRL RC/466/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding a cheque bounce case, the High Court allowed the appeal on terms of compromise. The criminal offenses were compounded, prior convictions quashed, and the respondent was directed to return the deposited sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

The impugned convictions and sentences were set aside and the offense compounded. The respondent was directed to return the deposited sum of Rs.1,50,000 with interest.

T.Selvakumar Vs S.Sathyabalan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.01.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2014

¶6

T.Selvakumar .. Petitioner/Appellant/Accused

¶7

Versus

¶8

S.Sathyabalan .. Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of conviction and sentence of six months of imprisonment to the petitioner/accused and for payment of compensation, a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to the respondent within a period of one month passed in C.C.No.204 of 2011 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai – 600001, dated 11.03.2013 as confirmed by the order, dated 21.04.2014 passed in C.A.No.79 of 2013 on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajan For Respondent : Mr.D.Ferdinand

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the conviction for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶13

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant also present through virtual mode and a joint memo of compromise was filed by the parties.

¶14

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

¶15

The respondent/complainant also confirmed the compromise memorandum, but, however submitted that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, which is deposited by the petitioner/accused is lying to the credit of C.C.No.204 of 2011 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and only after receipt of the same, his entire sum is made good and therefore, prayed this Court to return the amount to him directly.

¶16

In view of the joint memo of compromise filed by the parties, this Criminal Revision is allowed on the following terms:

¶17

(i) The judgment of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai – 600001, in C.C.No.204 of 2011, dated 11.03.2013 and the judgment of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.79 of 2013. dated 21.04.2014 are set aside;

¶18

(ii) The offence stands compounded;

¶19

(iii) The respondent/complainant, namely S.Sathyabalan, is permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, deposited by the petitioner/accused and lying to the credit of C.C.No.204 of 2011 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, along with accrued interest, if any.

¶20

*Herein enclosed the Xerox Copy of the Joint Memo of Compromise.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Digit)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

grs

¶25

¶26

The V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶27

The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai – 600001.

¶28

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

¶29

Do-Through, The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶30

Do-Through, The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

¶31

Crl.R.C.No.466 of 2014

¶32

GJ(CO) SU(19/01/2022)

¶33

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

T.Selvakumar v. S.Sathyabalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Selvakumar v. S.Sathyabalan

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

Eleven Eleven Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs QubeCinema Technologies Private Limited and 3 others

Eleven Eleven Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs QubeCinema Technologies Private Limited and 3 others

Nagaraj, S/O.Chikkanna, Vs State Rep.by the Inspector of

G.Thanickachalam, Vs R.Jayasankar, S/O.Ramalingam

N.Selvam Vs Banu Priya

A. Subramani Vs the State Rep. by