Allowed

N.Shanmugasundaram v. B.Senthilkumar

Madras HC6 Apr 2023CRL RC/131/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case filed under sections 397 and 401 CrPC, recording the compounding of the offence based on a joint compromise memo wherein the petitioner deposited the remaining amount and the complainant agreed to permit withdrawal of a portion of the already deposited funds.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the offence is recorded as compounded in the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo dated 30.03.2023.

N.Shanmugasundaram Vs B.Senthilkumar — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.131 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 06.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.131 of 2020

¶7

N.Shanmugasundaram .. Petitioner Vs. B.Senthil Kumar ..Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Crl.A.No.193 of 2018 on the file of the learned 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.C.No.163 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I, @ ML Coimbatore and set aside the judgment dated 18.09.2019.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Raj Thilak For Respondent : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 31.03.2023, the

¶12

petitioner/complainant and the respondent/accused has filed a Joint Memo of Compromise recording receipt of demand draft for

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.R.C.No.131 of 2020

¶15

Rs.14,00,000/- and agreement to permit the complainant to withdraw a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, which has already been deposited in the credit of C.C.No.163 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I (Fast Track Court at Magisterial level), Coimbatore.

¶16

2. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed recording

¶17

compounding of the offence in the terms of Joint Compromise Memo dated 30.03.2023, which reads as below:

¶18

“1) Rs. 1 lakh was deposited on 15.05.2018 pursuant to order in C.M.P.No. 1398/2018 in C.C.No.163 of 2014 order dated 10.05.2018.

¶19

2) Rs.5 lakhs was deposited on 25.02.2020 pursuant to order in Crl.M.P.No. 906 of 2020 in Crl.R.C.No.131/2020 dated 27.01.2020.

¶20

The petitioner submits that the remaining amount of Rs.14 lakhs is paid vide ICICI Bank Demand Draft vide No.506872 dated 24.03.2023 in favour of the respondent herein.”

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.R.C.No.131 of 2020

¶23

3. The complainant is permitted to withdraw a sum of

¶24

Rs.6,00,000/- deposited in C.C.No.163 of 2014 and lying in the account, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I (FTC at Magisterial level) Coimbatore, along with interest accrued if any.

¶25

06.04.2023

¶26

Internet : Yes/No Index: Yes/No rpl To

¶27

1.The 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 2.The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.I, @ ML Coimbatore.

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.R.C.No.131 of 2020

¶30

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶31

rpl

¶32

Crl.R.C.No.131 of 2020

¶33

06.04.2023

¶34

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

N.Shanmugasundaram v. B.Senthilkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Shanmugasundaram v. B.Senthilkumar

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

Rajeshwari Devadass Vs K.Thavamani

State by Vs Suresh @ Palanivelu

Jaiganesh @ Jayaganesh Vs State Rep by

K.S.Ganesan Vs P.S.Deivaraj

Sellamuthu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Nagulan Vs a.Sasikumar