After the actress Sumaya Al-Khashab reconciled with her ex-artist, Ahmed Saad, in the case of a check without balance, and canceled the ruling of imprisonment of 3 years, and the expiry of the lawsuit against her by conciliation, the “seventh day” clarifies the procedures for the expiration of the suit for reconciliation. Ahmed Abdel-Ghani, the lawyer and legal expert, says that the expiration of the criminal suit by conciliation is one of the rulings issued by the court that examines the criminal case in which reconciliation is permitted, and the judicial discontinuance of the criminal suit by conciliation means the acquittal of the accused because there is no face to file a criminal case against him.
And Abdul-Ghani added, in statements to “The Seventh Day”, that the law permits the accused to reconcile for offenses and misdemeanors that are not punishable by force other than the fine or that are punishable by imprisonment that does not exceed a maximum of six months.
He continued, the law stipulated that the accused who wishes to reconcile must pay, before filing the criminal lawsuit, an amount equivalent to one third of the maximum fine established for the crime, and payment to the court treasury or to the Public Prosecution or to whomever is authorized to do so by the Minister of Justice.
The Dokki Court of Misdemeanor decided to accept the opposition submitted by the artist Sumaya Al-Khashab to the sentence of 3 years imprisonment for her accusation in the case of a check without balance in favor of her ex-singer Ahmed Saad, and the expiration of the lawsuit against her by conciliation.
The Dokki Court of Misdemeanor, headed by Chancellor Mahmoud Hilal, sentenced the artist Sumaya al-Khashab in absentia for 3 years, accusing her of the misdemeanor of editing a check without balance, in the lawsuit filed by the artist, Ahmed Saad, and the ruling included obliging the artist to pay a 50,000-pound bail to stop the execution of the ruling, which is the case Restricted to 17590 of 2019.
The star Sumaya al-Khashab commented – earlier – on the ruling against her, saying: “If the defect is issued by the people of the defect, it does not become a defect … It does not respect the people, its agreements and the words of the big people.”
– .
