Abdul Sathar C. v. C.K. Sudheesh and State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2010-10-06
Court Decision / Holding: This Crl.R.P. is allowed; judgments dated 7.3.2005 in STC No.63/2004 (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery) and 24.12.2008 in Crl.A. No.241/2005 (Addl. Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Thalassery) are set aside and the accused Abdul Sathar C. is acquitted of all charges; the offence under Section 138 NI Act is deemed to have been compounded; the petitioner is set at liberty.
Final Disposition: Acquittal of the accused; revision petition allowed; lower judgments set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Sathar C.

Respondents

C.K. Sudheesh
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. V. Asokan
• Sri. P. P. Ramachandran

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. RukhiyaBi Mohd Kunhi
• Smt. Sumangala P.N.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The present matter arises from a revision petition filed by Abdul Sathar C. under Cr.P.C. challenging a conviction for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was convicted by the trial court and confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Thalassery. On 6 October 2010, this High Court in CRL.R.P. 2914/10, presided by Justice V.K. Mohanan, allowed the revision by recording that the parties had settled the dispute and had compounded the offence. A separate application (CrL.M.A. 7087/2010) demonstrated a lengthy delay in filing the revision; the petitioner, an ex-serviceman, urged that the matter had been settled out of court and a compounding petition had been filed with the revision petition, leaving no dispute on merit. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., JT 2010(4) CRL.R.P 457 SC 457, the court held that the offence could be compounded under section 320(8) Cr.P.C., and accordingly directed that the revision petition be allowed, setting aside the lower judgments and acquitting the petitioner. The court noted the parties’ settlement, recorded the composition, and ordered acquittal and liberty. The disposal underscores the court’s power to permit post-conviction compounding in appropriate circumstances.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Power to compound offences under CrPC
Compounding of offences after conviction
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. as authority for post-conviction compounding

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that there was an inordinate delay in filing the Revision Petition (CRL.R.P. 2914/10) but this delay was condoned by the court in CrL.M.A. 7087/2010. He submits that the matter had been settled out of court and a compounding petition had been filed along with the revision petition; there is no merit contest. The Ex‑Serviceman status and the settled dispute justify exercise of the court’s discretion to permit compounding and acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The petitioner prays that the revision be allowed and the lower judgments set aside.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents concede the compromise and do not oppose the compounding; with the parties having settled, there is no substantive dispute on merits. They rely on the governing law allowing post‑conviction compounding under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court guidance in Damodar S. Prabhu to justify the court’s order granting relief.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) CRL.R.P 457 SC 457	Positive	Cited as authority for permitting compounding of the offence under Section 320(8) CrPC after conviction; supports acquittal upon settlement.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2914 of 2010()** **------------------------------** **CRA.241/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY STC.63/2004 of CHIEF JUDITIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY** **....................** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------** **ABDUL SATHAR.C, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, HASEENA MANZIL,NARAYANPARA, PO ULIYI, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. C.K.SUDHEESH,S/O.KARUNAN,CHEMBILODE, THALASSERY.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD. KUNHI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SUMANGALA P.N.** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. R.P. No.2914 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------** Dated 6[th] day of October, 2010 ## **ORDER** The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court found that the accused is guilty and accordingly he is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 9285/2010, this court allowed the parties to compound the offence and accordingly, the composition of the said offence is recorded. The revision petitioner has also complied with the condition of paying cost, as fixed by this Court, on the basis of the guideline issued by the Apex Court in the decision reported in **Damodar.S.Prabhu** v. **Sayed Babalal.H.** [JT 2010(4) CRL.R.P 2914/10 ## **-:2:-** SC 457]. In the light of the composition of the offence between the contesting parties, I am of the view that this Crl. R.P can be allowed, acquitting the accused in terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 7.3.2005 in STC.No.63 of 2004 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery and the judgment dated 24.12..2008 in Crl.A.No.241 of 2005 of the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Thalassery and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** kvm/- CRL.R.P 2914/10 **-:3:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** kvm/- ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **--------------------------------------------Crl.M.A.No.7087 of 2010 in Unnumbered Crl.R.P.No. of 2010** **--------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2010** ## **O R D E R** This is an application to condone the delay of 1735 days occurred in filing the Crl.R.P. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and CRL.R.P 2914/10 ## **-:4:-** after the impugned judgment, the matter has been settled out of court and a compounding petition has also been filed along with the revision petition and there is no contention on merit. 3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, especially when the contesting parties settled the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to settle the matter and to redress his grievance. In the result, the delay of 1735 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is condoned and the Registry is directed to number the Crl.R.P. **V.K.Mohanan, Judge.** MBS/ CRL.R.P 2914/10 ## **-:5:-** **V.K.MOHANAN,** **J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF CRL.R.P 2914/10 **-:6:-** 200 ----------------------------------J U D G M E N T DATED: -2- 2010 CRL.R.P 2914/10 ## **-:7:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** CRL.R.P 2914/10 ## **-:8:-** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. This Crl.Revision Petition is preferred by the sole accused in C.C.No..... on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, ... and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No..... of the Addl.Sessions Judge, ......... The revision petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The cheque in question involved is for an amount CRL.R.P 2914/10 ## **-:9:-** of Rs.......This Court passed an order today allowing the compounding petition filed by the revision petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent, countersigned by their respective counsels. In the light of the fact that the offence has been compounded by the parties to the dispute, I am of the view that this Crl.Revision Petition can be allowed setting aside the judgments of the courts below. In the result, this Crl.R.P is allowed setting aside the judgment dated ...... in ..... of the JFCM-II, ...... and the judgment dated in Crl.A.No...... of the Addl. Sessions Judge, ...... Court-II, Alappuzha and acquitting the accused. The Crl.R.P is allowed as above. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** ## CRL.R.P 2914/10 ## **-:10:-** kvm/- **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** CRL.R.P 2914/10 ## **-:11:-** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . CRL.R.P 2914/10 **-:12:-**