D SIMPSON Vs. S T PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8352 of 2014 faces prosecution for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.3359 of 2006 on the file of learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, pursuant to a complaint preferred by the respondent in Crl.OP.No.8352/2014. The said case ended in a conviction and the petitioner was sentenced to one year imprisonment, with a further direction to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation, in default, to undergo 3 months imprisonment, under judgment dated 08.08.2008. The petitioner / accused preferred appeal as against the said conviction before III Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and the appellate Court confirmed the order of trial Court, vide judgment dated 10.02.2009. A further revision was moved before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.273 of 2009, which was dismissed under order dated 15.11.2011, thereby confirming the judgments of the Courts below.

(2.) The present petition in Crl.O.P.No.8352 of 2014 is filed informing a compromise arrived at between the petitioner / accused and the respondent / de facto complainant and of the respondent having received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in full quit and further that the respondent has also agreed to co-operate for compounding the offence committed by the petitioner / accused. A joint memo of compromise dated 01.04.2014 signed both by the petitioner / accused and the respondent / de facto complainant and attested by two witnesses confirms such position.

(3.) Towards supporting the submission of learned counsel for petitioner / accused that principle of functus officio would not apply even after the dismissal of the revision filed before this Court, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 5 SCC 663. The following paragraphs in the said decision are relevant.