Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K.MOHANAN
Judgment Date: 2011-02-21
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; the revision petitioner is acquitted of all charges; composition of the offence under Section 420 IPC is recorded under Cr.P.C. 320(8). Additionally, a separate compounding petition under Section 138 of the NI Act is entertained in related proceedings, following the Damodar S. Prabhu precedent, with deposits made as required. The petitioner is thus at liberty.
Final Disposition: Acquittal; case disposed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Philip Chacko

Respondents

Isaac
The State of Kerala
Sayyed Muhammed alias Thaha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.T. Joseph
• Joe Pollayil
• Roshin Ipe Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• P.R.Venketesh
• N.Saju Thomas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment, delivered by V.K. Mohanan, concerns Criminal Revision Petition No. 1730 of 2005 arising from a conviction for offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, with the trial court and the first appellate court imposing two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The revision petitioner contends the conviction should be set aside. On 21 February 2011, the High Court noted that the dispute between the accused and the complainant had been settled out of court and that the complainant did not wish to proceed. The court allowed a joint petition to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC and, relying on the terms of the compromise, recorded composition under Cr.P.C. 320(8) and directed acquittal of the revision petitioner. The order reflects the court’s exercise of discretionary power to permit compoundings where there is a settlement and consent of the parties. In a separate line of orders, the court also entertained a compounding petition in a Negotiable Instruments Act matter (Section 138), referencing a Supreme Court decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., and requiring deposit of 1% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. The overall effect is the acquittal and discharge of the petitioner, with the case disposed of on compounding grounds. These dispositions reflect a trend toward resolving criminal disputes by compounding when parties settle and the law permits, balancing justice and closure for both sides.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPCCr.P.C. 320(8)Cr.P.C. 320(2)Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 147

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that the dispute had been settled out of court and the complainant consents to compound, which justifies invoking the court’s discretion under Cr.P.C. 320(8) to acquit upon recording a valid composition. The revision petition seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence on the basis of the settlement and legal fiat to compound.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents indicate consonance with the settlement to compound the offence, emphasising that the complainant’s withdrawal of further prosecution and the terms of the compromise justify the court’s exercise of its discretion under Cr.P.C. 320(8) to record composition and acquit the accused; the court’s reliance on relevant precedents is noted.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Supreme Court decision permitting compounding, including a requirement to deposit 1% of the cheque amount, cited to justify compounding in the NI Act context and to support the present CrPC compounding approach.

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** **MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1730 of 2005()** **------------------------------** **( CRA.50/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT , PATHANAMTHITTA CC.605/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA)** **....................** ## **REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/FIRST ACCUSD.** **------------------------------------------------------------------------** **PHILIP CHACKO, KUZHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, VALANJAVATTOM MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.T.JOSEPH** **SRI.JOE POLLAYIL** **SRI.ROSHIN IPE JOSEPH** **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND APPELLANT NO.2/COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED NO.2.** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. ISSAC, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALANJAVATTOM MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE.** **2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **3. SAYED MUHAMMED ALIAS THAHA, THAZHATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PEZHUCHAPPALLIL MURI, MOOVATTUPPUZHA TALUK.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.SAJU THOMAS** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 1730 of 2005** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2011 ## **ORDER** The revision petitioner is the first accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 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. The allegation against the revision petitioner is that he along with other accused cheated the complainant by giving fake gold ingots and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla, by judgment dated 5.2.2000 in C.C.No.605 of 1995 convicted both the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of them was directed to pay fine of ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:2:-** Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused therein preferred a common appeal and by judgment dated 8.6.2005 in Crl.A.No.50 of 2000, the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADHOC) Court-I, Pathanamthitta dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court. It is against the above conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court, the first accused preferred this Criminal Revision Petition. 3. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 716/2011, this court allowed the contesting parties to compound the offence, especially when this Court is satisfied with the terms and conditions stated in the compounding petition and accordingly, the composition of the said offence is recorded. As the ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:3:-** matter has been settled out of court and the offence has been compounded, the revision petitioner is entitled to get an acquittal, by virtue of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner as per the judgment dated 5.2.2000 in C.C.No.605 of 1995 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tiruvalla and the judgment dated 8.6.2005 in Crl.A.No.50 of 2000 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADHOC) Court-I, Pathanamthitta 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** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:4:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN,J.** **---------------------------------------------------------Crl.M.A.No.716 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 1730 of 2005** **--------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of February,2011** ## **O R D E R** This is an application filed under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to permit the third petitioner herein to compound the offence for which the first petitioner herein/revision petitioner will stand convicted and sentenced. 2. The allegation against the revision petitioner is that he along with other accused cheated the complainant by giving fake gold ingots and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla, by judgment dated 5.2.2000 in C.C.No.605 of 1995 convicted both the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:5:-** under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of them was directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused therein preferred a common appeal and by judgment dated 8.6.2005 in Crl.A.No.50 of 2000, the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADHOC) Court-I, Pathanamthitta dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court. It is against the above conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court, the first accused preferred the Criminal Revision Petition. In the above joint petition, it is stated that the dispute was settled out of court and the third petitioner/the complainant does not want to proceed any further against the revision petitioner. According to the revision petitioner, as such, there is no dispute ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:6:-** between the contesting parties. I have gone through the joint petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions entered therein. As the contesting parties have already settled the dispute, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to permit the parties to compound the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. for which the revision petitioner will stand convicted and sentenced. Accordingly, permission is granted and the composition of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is recorded. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** **-:7:-** ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:8:-** ## V.K.MOHANAN, J. **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 7088 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No. 2242 of 2010** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2010. ## **ORDER** This is a petition filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The dispute is the subject matter of the Crl.R.P. In the petition, it is stated that during the pendency of the cases, the entire matter was settled and the petitioner/first respondent has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The petitioner/first respondent does not intend to prosecute the matter any further. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions incorporated therein and the petition is signed by both the revision petitioner and the first respondent/ **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:9:-** complainant and countersigned by their respective counsel. As the revision petitioner is an and considering the particular facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially, in the light of the discretion granted to this Court by the Apex Court in the decision reported in **Damodar.S.Prabhu** v. **Sayed Babalal.H.** [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition depositing 1% of the cheque amount, as per order dated 19.7.2010 so as to enable him to move this Court to compound the offence for which he is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.4000/- being 1% of the cheque amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.074 dated 23.7.2010 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the compounding petition, ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:10:-** which is signed by the revision petitioner as well as the first respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **--------------------------------------------Crl.M.A.No.7087 of 2010 in** **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:11:-** ## **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 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 ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:12:-** Registry is directed to number the Crl.R.P. **V.K.Mohanan, Judge.** MBS/ **V.K.MOHANAN,** **J.** **==> picture [402 x 627] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005 -:13:- -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ---------------------------- -------- J U D G M E N T DATED: -2- 2010 **----- End of picture text -----** ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** **-:14:-** ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:15:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . ## **Crl.R.P.No.1730 of 2005** ## **-:16:-** O.P.No. ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:..