Allowed

N.Ellammal v. P.Sivasubramanian

Madras HC23 Mar 2022CRL RC(MD)/958/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision regarding a cheque dishonour case, the High Court quashed the conviction and sentence after the appellant paid the entire compensation amount, and the parties filed a joint memo stating that the matter was compromised and the respondent had no objection to the compound. The Court acquittal the revision petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The judgment confirming the conviction was quashed, and the revision petitioner was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

N.Ellammal Vs P.Sivasubramanian — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.R.C(MD).No.958 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.03.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.R.C(MD).No.958 of 2021

¶3

...Revition Petitioner/ Appellant/Accused

N.Ellammal

P.Sivasubramanian

...Respondent/Respondent/ Complainant

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.A.No.126 of 2019 dated 09.11.2021 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, by confirming the judgment in S.T.C.No.608 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai and duly set aside the judgment of the Courts below by acquitting the revision petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Narayanan For Respondent : Mr.K.Manoharan

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed as against the judgment passed in C.A.No.126 of 2019 dated 09.11.2021 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.608 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai.

¶12

The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months with compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and in default of payment of the compensation, the petitioner shall undergo a further period of two weeks. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.126 of 2019, however the same was dismissed and the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court.

¶13

While pending the Criminal Revision case, there was settlement arrived between the parties and the entire amount has been paid to the respondent. To that extent, the petitioner and the respondent filed a joint memo which reads as under:-

¶14

It is submitted that Revision Petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai being 25% of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/2

¶16

CRL.R.C(MD).No.958 of 2021

¶17

cheque amount a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Further, the Revision Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/through demand draft dated 19.03.2022 and DD No.407373 drawn on the Tiruchirappalli District Central Co.Op. Bank Limited, Vaiyampatti Branch to the Respondent today. The entire cheque amount was paid to the Respondent. So, the above said cheque matter was compromised between the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent. The revision petitioner counsel will endorsed no objection to the Complainant counsel before the trial Court for withdrawing of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In this regard, this memo is filed before this Hon'ble Court.

¶18

Both the petitioner and the respondent are before this Court. The respondent states that the entire amount has been received and he has no objection to compound the offence.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid facts, the judgment passed by the II Additional District Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli in C.A.No.126 of 2019 on 09.11.2021 confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.608 of 2018 on 12.07.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai is quashed. The petitioner is hereby acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶20

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

// True Copy //

ssb

1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli 2.Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai.

¶26

Copy to

¶27

The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.K.MANOHARAN, Advocate ( SR-14454[F] dated 25/03/2022 )

¶29

CRL.R.C(MD).No.958 of 2021 23.03.2022

¶30

RK(18/04/2022) 2P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2/2

N.Ellammal v. P.Sivasubramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ellammal v. P.Sivasubramanian

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

Muni @ Ramasamy Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

K.Pandiaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Ochappan.C Vs The Deputy Superintendent of POlice

The Evergreen Recreation Club Vs the Inspector General of Police

T.Kumaresan Vs Banu Santhini @ Pandeeswari

R.Elavarasan Vs G.Senthil Kumar