High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-06-07Revision petitions disposed of; compounding per...

K.K. Dinesan v. Jose Kuttel and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1136 of 2013

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2013-06-07
Court Decision / Holding: Permission is granted to compound the offence and the composition is recorded. The revision petitions are disposed of; the judgments under appeal are set aside; the composition is recorded, and it shall have the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.
Final Disposition: Revision petitions disposed of; compounding permitted; judgments under appeal set aside; composition recorded; acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.K. Dinesan

Respondents

Jose Kuttel
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C.A. Rajeev

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. John Britto
• Public Prosecutor SMT Seena Ramakrishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court revision petition concerns K.K. Dinesan, who was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala, and whose conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Fast Track Court, Alappuzha. While the revision was pending, the accused and the complainant settled the matter out of court and filed a Cr.L.M.A. under Section 147 of the N.I. Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offence. The petition was supported by both parties and counsels, and the petitioner had already deposited costs to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority in compliance with the Supreme Court directive in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal. The High Court, upon being satisfied about the genuine settlement and the consent of the complainant, granted permission to compound and recorded the composition. The court disposed of the revision petitions, set aside the judgments under appeal, and held that the composition shall have the effect of acquittal of the petitioner under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. This judgment reflects a trend toward resolving NI Act disputes by out-of-court settlements with proper safeguards.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ActSection 357(1) Cr.P.C.Section 320 Cr.P.C.Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments ActSection 320(8) Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compounding of offences leads to acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.
Out-of-court settlements can be a basis for disposing of NI Act matters when consented to by the parties and directed by law.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the matter has been settled out of court with the 1st respondent who does not want to prosecute further. The parties and their counsels have signed a joint petition under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offence. The applicant notes that the complainant is no longer desirous of continuing the prosecution in light of the settlement and the social interest in quelling disputes quickly. The court is urged to grant permission to compound and record the composition, which would have the effect of an acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The petition is supported by the 1st respondent and their counsel. The deposition of costs to KSLSA, in line with the Supreme Court directive in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal, is cited as compliance with the requisite procedure.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents state that the averments in the petition are true and correct to their knowledge and belief. They acknowledge the out-of-court settlement and support compounding the offence, noting that the 1st respondent does not wish to prosecute further. The respondents insist that the petition is genuine, seeks legitimate relief under the statutory framework, and that the court should dispose of the revision by recording the composition, which will prevent further prosecution and conserve judicial resources.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal	2010(2) KLT 587(SC)	Positive	The Supreme Court direction in this decision is cited to justify compliance with out-of-court settlements, including deposition of costs to KSLSA, and to support the permissibility and effect of compounding in the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.K. Dinesan v. Jose Kuttel and State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/17TH JYAISHTA 1935** ## **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1136 of 2013 ()** **-------------------------------CRL.A. NO.141/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-I, ALAPPUZHA. CC. NO.650/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, CHERTHALA.** **...............** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED:** **-----------------------------------------------------------------------** **K.K. DINESAN, AGED 49, KUNNAVELI, MUHAMMA P.O., NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL, S.N. PURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.A.RAJEEV.** ## **RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. JOSE KUTTEL, PUTHENVEEDU, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 525.** ## **2. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN.** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **K.HARILAL, J.** ## = = = = = = = = **Crl.M.A.No. 4065 of 2013 in Crl.R.P.No.1136 of 2013** = = === = = = = = = = === Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2013 ## **O R D E R** The Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.650/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala, as well as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.141/2010 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Alappuzha. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'N.I. Act') on a complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent herein. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default to undergo **Crl.M.A.No. 4065 of 2013 in Crl.R.P.No.1136 of 2013** **2** simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. On payment of fine, the same shall be given to the complainant/1[st] respondent as compensation u/s 357(1) Cr.P.C. Though the Revision Petitioner had preferred an appeal, the Appellate Court also confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. In appeal, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence. Now the Revision Petitioner along with the 1[st] respondent filed this Crl.M.A. under Section 147 of the N.I. Act read with Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. In the petition, it is specifically stated that the subject matter of the above Revision Petition has been settled between the Revision Petitioner and the 1[st] respondent out of court and now the 1[st] respondent is not desirous on prosecuting the case against the Revision Petitioner. They jointly sought for permission of the Court **Crl.M.A.No. 4065 of 2013 in Crl.R.P.No.1136 of 2013** **3** for compounding the offence. 2. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent also submits that the averments in the petition are true and correct to his knowledge and belief also. It is seen that the Revision Petitioner has deposited Rs.2,000/- as cost to Kerala State Legal Services Authority in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court in the decision **Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal [2010(2) KLT 587(SC)]** . As I am satisfied with the averments in the petition signed by both the parties and countersigned by the respective counsel appearing for the parties, permission is granted to compound the offence and composition is recorded. **K.HARILAL, JUDGE.** ## **Stu** **//True copy//** ## **P.A to Judge.** ## **K. HARILAL, J.** **----------------------------------------------------Crl. R.P. No. 1136 of 2013 ----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2013** ## **ORDER** During the pendency of this revision filed against the conviction and sentence of the Revision Petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the parties have settled the matter and have filed Crl.M.A. No.4065/2013 to the effect that the matter has been compounded. The said petition has been signed by the Revision Petitioner as well as the 1[st] respondent and their respective counsel. In the light of this, Crl.R.P. is disposed of and the judgments under appeal are set aside and the composition of the offence is recorded. 2. It is needless to mention that this composition shall have the effect of acquittal of the Revision Petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act within the meaning of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. ## **(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)** **K. HARILAL, J. ----------------------------------------------------Crl. R.P. No. 1084 of 2013 ----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2013** ## **ORDER** During the pendency of this revision filed against the conviction and sentence of the Revision Petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the parties have settled the matter and have filed Crl.M.A. No.3892/2013 to the effect that the matter has been compounded. The said petition has been signed by the Revision Petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent and their respective counsel. In the light of this, Crl.R.P. is disposed of and the judgments under appeal are set aside and the composition of the offence is recorded. 2. It is needless to mention that this composition shall have the effect of acquittal of the Revision Petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act within the meaning of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. ## **(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)** ## **Nan/** ## **K. HARILAL, J.** **----------------------------------------------------Crl.M.A.No.3892 of 2013 in Crl. R.P. No. 1084 of 2013** **----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of June, 2013** ## **ORDER** The Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1074/2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor, as well as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.280/2008 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'N.I. Act') on a complaint filed by the 2[nd] respondent herein. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,90,000/-, which shall be paid to the 2[nd] respondent towards compensation. In default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Though the Revision Petitioner had preferred an appeal, the Appellate Court also confirmed the conviction. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence. Now the Revision Petitioner along with the 2[nd] respondent filed this Crl.M.A. under Section 147 of the N.I. Act read with Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. In the petition, it is specifically stated that the subject matter of the above Revision Petition has been settled between the Revision Petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent out of court and now the 2[nd] respondent is not desirous on prosecuting the case against the Revision Petitioner. They jointly sought for permission of the Court for compounding the offence. 2. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent also submits that the averments in the petition are true and correct to his knowledge and belief also. It is seen that the Revision Petitioner has deposited Rs.7,000/- as cost to Kerala State Legal Services Authority in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court in the decision **Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal [2010(2) KLT 587(SC)]** . As I am satisfied with the averments in the petition signed by both the parties and countersigned by the respective counsel appearing for the parties, permission is granted to compound the offence and composition is recorded. ## **(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)** ## **Nan/**