Allowed

N.Kanagalakshmi v. R.Indira

Madras HC28 Nov 2023CRL OP/20202/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed by an accused against the return of a criminal appeal after conviction for cheque dishonour. The petitioner later paid full compensation and the complainant acknowledged receipt. The High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to compound the offence and recall the Non-Bailable Warrant.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order returning the Criminal Appeal is set aside; the offence is compounded; the Non-Bailable Warrant recalled.

N.Kanagalakshmi Vs R.Indira — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P. No.20202 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 28.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P No.20202 of 2023

N.Kanagalakshmi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

R.Indira

..Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the returned Docket Order in S.R.No.3419 of 2023 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Divya Priya For Respondent : Mr.M.Suresh ORDER

¶14

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed by the

¶15

accused in S.T.C. No.6750 of 2015, who was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide Judgment dated 13.06.2023, sentenced to undergo 11 months Simple Imprisonment and directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,96,000/-. On the date of

¶16

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P. No.20202 of 2023

¶18

judgement, the petitioner was not present, hence, NBW was issued to secure the petitioner.

¶19

Challenging the order, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal before the Court of Sessions at Chengalpet, on the ground that the parties have arrived at settlement and therefore, the case has to be compounded. However, the trial Court has not entertained the Appeal since there was certain defects in the Appeal paper. Challenging the docket order returning the Criminal Appeal, the present Original Petition is filed.

¶20

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvass for compounding the offence, since the parties have arrived at settlement and the entire compensation amount mentioned in the impugned order been paid to the complainant. The complainant/respondent herein is present in person today and also represented by the learned counsel that the payment of compensation amount of Rs.8,96,000/- is received by the defacto complainant and acknowledged by the respondent/complainant.

¶21

In the light of the above fact, the order of the trial Court in S.T.C. No.6750 of 2015 dated 13.06.2023 is modified as compounded and

¶22

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.O.P. No.20202 of 2023

¶24

compensation amount of Rs.8,96,000/- duly paid to the respondent/complainant, hence, NBW issued by the trial Court on the date of judgment on 13.06.2023 is hereby recalled and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶25

28.11.2023

¶26

Internet : Yes/No Index: Yes/No rkp To

¶27

1.The District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. 2.The Judicial Magistrate-1, Tambaram.

¶28

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.O.P. No.20202 of 2023

¶30

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶31

rkp

¶32

Crl.O.P No.20202 of 2023

¶33

28.11.2023

¶34

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.Kanagalakshmi v. R.Indira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kanagalakshmi v. R.Indira

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

M/S.Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.Sundaresan Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by

S.Sankari Vs the State Rep.by

T.Bharathi, M/a 55 Yrs, Vs State by the Deputy

S.Senthilkumar Vs N.Sekar

C.R. Sindhya Vs S.Vignesh