SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Soumya V.S., W/o.Advocate Ravikumar – Appellant
Versus
Haridas, S/o. Palatingal Gopalan Nair – Respondents
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.334 of 2021
Decided on : 11-05-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN, SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI, SRI.M.M.VINOD, SMT.M.SUSEELA, SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN, SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K., SRI.C.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, SHRI.SANAL C.S, SHRI.NITHEESH.M
For the Respondent: T.K.NAZAR, P.P.SMT.K.K.SHEEBA

Point of Law: Monetary Laws and Norms - Negotiable Instrument - Amicable Settlement between parties - Matter is settled between parties and a compounding petition is also filed.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Offence of Dishonored of cheque - Convicted - Compromise between parties - Counsel for revision petitioner submitted that matter is settled and a compounding petition is filed - A counsel appeared for first respondent and he submitted that an affidavit is filed stating that matter is settled and first respondent has no grievance against petitioner.

Finding of the court: In the light of the fact that the matter is settled between the parties and a compounding petition is also filed, I think the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner can be set aside.

Result: Crl.R.P. is allowed

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant as per the judgment dated 26.11.2020 in Crl.A.No.274 of 2017 on the file of the Session's Judge, Thrissur which arises from the judgment dated 06.11.2017 in S.T.No.117 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II, Chalakudy. It was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. When this revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter is settled and a compounding petition is filed. A counsel appeared for the first respondent and he submitted that an affidavit is filed stating that the matter is settled and the first respondent has no grievance against the petitioner. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

3. In the light of the fact that the matter is settled between the parties and a compounding petition is also filed, I think the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner can be set aside.

Therefore, this Crl.R.P. is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, as per the judgment dated 26.11.2017 in Crl.A.No.274 of 2017 which arises from the judgment dated 06.11.2017 in S.T.No. 117 of 2017, is set aside.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top