K.P.SHBEEB v. Maheswari Finance & Investments & State

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2011-03-25
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.R.P. allowed; setting aside the judgments in CC No. 363 of 2008 and Crl.A. No. 61 of 2010; acquitted the revision petitioner; directed release of Rs. 50,000 deposited, to the first respondent/complainant on application; compounding petition recorded and permitted to stand.
Final Disposition: Revision petition allowed; accused acquitted; compounding recorded; deposit to be released to complainant; judgments set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.P.SHBEEB

Respondents

Maheswari Finance & Investments
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri R. Sudhish

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri T.G. Rajendran (for R1 R2)
• Sri V. Tek Chand, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petition filed by K.P. Shbeeb (accused) challenging his conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court and the first appellate court found him guilty and convicted him, with a sentence that the High Court later stayed, leading to a compounding petition. On 25 March 2011, the High Court allowed the revision petition in light of an out-of-court settlement between the parties and the terms of a compounding petition. The court relied on the Supreme Court's Damodar S. Prabhu decision to exercise its discretion for compounding under section 138 NI Act on payment of costs and compliance with the petition’s terms. The composition records that the parties settled, with payments acknowledged (including Rs. 1,50,000 in the settlement package and Rs. 50,000 already deposited under an appellate court order). Consequently, the High Court acquitted the accused and set aside the lower judgments (C.C. No. 363/2008 and Crl.A. No. 61/2010) and directed release of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant on application. A separate compounding petition (Crl.M.A. 2807/2011) was allowed, formalizing the composition. The decision emphasizes the Court’s discretionary power to permit compounding in amicable settlements under the NI Act.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compounding of offences under Cr.P.C. (Section 320(8))
Guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner pressed for compounding under Section 138 NI Act in view of an amicable out-of-court settlement; reliance was placed on the Supreme Court guideline in Damodar S. Prabhu to exercise the Court’s discretion, supported by compliance with the settlement terms and costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (complainant and State) supported the settlement and the arrangement for compounding, as evidenced by the signed compounding petition and the terms agreed between the parties.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Cited as the controlling guideline enabling the High Court to exercise its discretion to compound under NI Act 138 in light of an amicable 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 FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH, 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3475 of 2010 ------------------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- K.P.SHBEEB, S/O. ABDULLA KOYA, AGED 39 YEARS, BAITHUL NOOR, MARUTHAMOOLI PARAMBA, PAYYANAKKAL.P.O., KALLAI, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENTS(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------- 1. MAHESWARI FINANCE & INVESTMENTS, III FLOOR, MALABAR GATE, RAM MOHAN ROAD, CALICUT-673004. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.DINESAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 36 YEARS. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 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. 2807/2011, 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) 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 ## **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** ## **-:2:-** Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 11.1.2010 in C.C.No.363 of 2008 of the court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Marad Cases), Kozhikode and the judgment dated 6.10.2010 in Crl.A.No.61 of 2010 of the court of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against him in the above case and he is set at liberty. There will be a direction to the trial court, in terms of the clause of the compounding petition, that a sum of `.50,000/-, which is already deposited by the revision petitioner/accused in terms of the order passed by the appellate court while suspending the execution of sentence, shall be released in favour of the first respondent/complainant on his application in this regard. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. MBS/ **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** ## **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** ## **-:3:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 2807 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 25[th] day of March, 2011. ## **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 due to the financial crisis of the revision petitioner, some of the mediators mediated the matter with the first respondent/complainant and amicably settled the entire dispute by paying `.1,50,000/-. It is also stated that an amount of `.1,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant directly and a direction may be given to the trial court that an amount of `.50,000/-, which is deposited in the appellate court by the revision petitioner, is to be released in favour of the first respondent/complainant on an application in this regard. **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** ## **-:4:-** 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/ complainant and countersigned by their respective counsel. 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 an amount of Rs.20,000/- as per order dated 16.3.2011 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.20,000/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.269 dated 21.3.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in ## **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** ## **-:5:-** the compounding petition, 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. There will be a direction to the trial court, in terms of the clause of the compounding petition, that a sum of `.50,000/-, which is already deposited by the revision petitioner/accused in terms of the order passed by the appellate court while suspending the execution of sentence, shall be released in favour of the first respondent/complainant on his application in this regard. ## **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** ## **-:6:-** ## **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 ## **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** ## **-:7:-** 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 Registry is directed to number the Crl.R.P. ## **V.K.Mohanan,** **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** ## **-:8:-** **Judge.** ## MBS/ **V.K.MOHANAN,** **J.** -------------------------------------------- ## **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010 -:9:-** Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------J U D G M E N DATED: -2- T 2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** **-:10:-** ## **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** ## **-:11:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. ## **Crl.R.P.No. 3475 of 2010** ## **-:12:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:..