Madras High Court
G.Dhanapriya vs Pradeep Chordia on 8 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No1421 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No12442 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 08.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2018
and
Cr.M.P.No.12442 of 2021
G.Dhanapriya .. Petitioner
Vs.
Pradeep Chordia .. Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Cases have been filed under sections 397
read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.985 of 2011, dated 30.09.2014
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I,
Egmore, Chennai and confirming the same in C.A.No.267/2014, dated
03.11.2018 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayakumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Rafi
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No1421 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No12442 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging
the judgment of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai dated
03.11.2018 passed in C.A.No.267 of 2014, confirming the conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Fast Track
Court-I), Chennai dated 30.09.2014 passed in C.C.No.985 of 2011.
2. The petitioner is the accused. The respondent is the
defacto complainant. This case has arisen out of a private complaint given
by the respondent/complainant on the allegations that the cheque issued
by the petitioner/accused for discharging the debt owed by him, got
returned due to "Insufficient funds". After issuing the statutory notice and
after complying the due legal mandates, the private complaint was filed
against the accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast
Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence under Section 138 r/w
142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No1421 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No12442 of 2021
3. After the conclusion of the trial and on considering the
materials available on record, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Fast
Track Court-I, Chennai has found the accused guilty, convicted and
sentenced him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Against which, the petitioner/accused has filed an appeal
in C.A.No.267 of 2014 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai, and that was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the
petitioner/accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Case.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 08.12.2021,
both sides counsel represented that the parties had compromised the
matter and they have filed a joint memo of compromise. The revision
petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant were also present
through video conference and when enquired, they said that they had
consented to the terms of compromise by understanding the same. Hence,
the joint memo of compromise is recorded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No1421 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No12442 of 2021
5. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties,
this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as settled out of Court.
Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition is also closed.
The Judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court
No.I, Chennai, dated 03.11.2018 passed in C.C.No.267 of 2014 is set
aside. The order as to compensation has already been complied.
6. In criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.No.16605 of
2018) filed to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, this Court passed a
conditional order on 18.12.2018, directing the petitioner/accused to
deposit the compensation amount of Rs.5,62,500/- in to the trial Court
deposit. The condition has been complied and that the same was not
denied by the respondent/complainant as well.
7. Now, the respondent/complainant has filed a petition in
Crl.M.P.No.12442 of 2021 praying permission of this Court to withdraw
the said compensation sum already deposited by the accused in the
account of the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No1421 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No12442 of 2021
8. The accused has got no objection to grant permission to
the respondent/complainant to withdraw the said sum, since the above
sum was the compensation ordered to be paid to the
respondent/complainant.
9. Hence, the Crl.M.P.No.12442 of 2021 is allowed. The
defacto complainant is permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.5,62,500/-
lying in the trial Court deposit with accrued interest, if any, by way of
filing an appropriate application before the trial Court. On receipt of the
same, the trial Court shall pass orders for allowing the defacto
complainant to withdraw the said amount.
08.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rpl
To
1. The IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No1421 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No12442 of 2021
R.N. MANJULA, J.
rpl
Crl.R.C.No.1421of 2018
and Cr.M.P.No.12442 of 2021
08.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
