Rajesh v. Sathish Kumar
Dated : 16.08.2023
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.904 of 2023
Introduction:
The case of Rajesh v. Sathish Kumar revolves around a dispute related to a dishonoured cheque, in accordance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner/appellant, Rajesh, borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 from the respondent/complainant, Sathish Kumar, and issued a cheque to repay the debt. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, leading to legal proceedings against Rajesh.
Factual Background:
On July 1, 2013, Rajesh borrowed Rs. 2,00,000 from Sathish Kumar. To settle the debt, Rajesh issued a cheque dated January 22, 2014, drawn on Canara Bank, Kulithalai Branch. However, the cheque was returned on January 28, 2014, due to insufficient funds. Sathish Kumar sent a legal notice on February 12, 2014, which Rajesh received on February 17, 2014. Despite the notice, Rajesh failed to make the payment, prompting Sathish Kumar to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kulithalai.
Trial and Conviction:
Rajesh appeared before the trial court upon receiving summons and contested the case. The trial court, after following due procedure, examined witnesses and perused relevant documents. Based on the evidence, including testimonies of PW.1, PW.2, D.W.1, and court witness CW.1, and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7, the trial court convicted Rajesh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and was also ordered to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation.
Appeal and Confirmation:
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, Rajesh filed a criminal appeal (Crl.A.No.168 of 2018) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karur. However, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision and confirmed the conviction and sentence on May 24, 2019.
Current Proceedings:
Rajesh then approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court via a Criminal Revision Case (Crl.R.C(MD)No.904 of 2023) under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). He sought the court’s intervention to set aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquit him from the charges. Rajesh was represented by Mr. R. Mathiyalagan, while Mr. R. Murugan represented Sathish Kumar.
Compromise and Resolution:
During the hearing, both counsels informed the court that the matter had been compromised between the parties. They explained that Rajesh had been arrested on July 13, 2023, and was currently in jail, which prevented them from filing a formal compromise memo. Despite this, they confirmed that Sathish Kumar had received the cheque amount of Rs. 2,00,000.
Court’s Decision:
Given the circumstances, the respondent, Sathish Kumar, appeared before the court and affirmed that he had indeed received the cheque amount. Taking into consideration Rajesh’s incarceration and the inability to file a formal compromise memo, the court recorded the respondent’s affirmation statement regarding the receipt of the cheque amount.
In light of the affirmation and the fact that the respondent had received the full amount due, the court applied Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and compounded the offense under Section 138. Consequently, the court allowed the Criminal Revision Case, setting aside the judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court. Rajesh was acquitted from the charges levied against him.
Conclusion:
The case of Rajesh v. Sathish Kumar underscores the importance of compromise and resolution in legal proceedings, particularly when the parties involved have reached an agreement. The court’s decision to record the respondent’s affirmation, coupled with the application of relevant sections of the Negotiable Instruments Act, allowed for a just resolution to the case. The analysis of this case highlights the significance of effective legal representation, adherence to procedural norms, and the role of compromise in ensuring the efficient functioning of the legal system.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar
