Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAllowed; conviction and sentence set aside; bai...

P. P. Raghavan v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.REV.PET NO. 88 OF 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2023-09-29
Court Decision / Holding
The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court are set aside. Bail bonds and sureties are cancelled, and any fine remitted shall be refunded. The revision petition is allowed in terms of the settlement/compounding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Final Disposition
Allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bonds and sureties cancelled; fine refunded; revision petition allowed in terms of settlement/compounding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P. P. Raghavan, S/O Sankaran, Poolakkapoyil House, Naduvannur P.O., Kozhikode

Respondents

  • KUNYIL PAVITHRAN, S/O KUNHIRAMAN, NADUVANNUR P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673 614
  • STATE OF KERALA, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi-31

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Santharam P

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri J.R Prem Navaz
  • • Sri Sumeen S.
  • • Smt Pushpalatha M.K

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, in a criminal revision under Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 88 of 2011, considers whether a conviction for an offence under Section 420 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the accused and the complainant arrived at a settlement. The Trial Court convicted the first accused for dishonestly presenting a cheque (Ext P1) with the intention to deceive; the cheque bounced with the reason “drawer differs.” The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence, and the first accused challenged the decision by way of revision. On 29 September 2023, the court noted that the parties have settled and that the State has no objection to quashing the proceedings in terms of a compounding application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relying on Soban v. State of Kerala and the Supreme Court precedents (Joshi, Gian Singh, Bitan Singh Gupta) and Renjith v. State of Kerala, the court held that where the offence is compoundable and not prohibited to be quashed by the Gian Singh guidelines, the inherent power of the High Court can be invoked to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are set aside, bail bonds and sureties cancelled, and any fine remitted refunded. The petition is allowed in terms of a settlement and compounding.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)Section 34 IPCSection 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Prevention of abuse of the process of the Court
  • Ends of justice (doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the settlement between the parties justifies invoking the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in respect of a compoundable offence, so as to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. It is argued that the settlement and consent of the State render further prosecution unnecessary, and that cancellation of bail bonds and refund of any paid fine would align with a just resolution of the dispute.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, through counsel, does not oppose the petition in light of the settlement, contending that quashing under 482 Cr.P.C. should follow the settled principle that ends of justice are served and proceedings in respect of a compoundable offence may be quashed where permissible and not barred by Gian Singh guidelines.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Soban v. State of Kerala2021 (3) KLT Online 1179PositiveCourt agrees with Soban’s principle that, under Cr.P.C. Section 482, proceedings in respect of compoundable offences may be quashed if ends of justice and prevention of abuse of process are served, consistent with Gian Singh.
Joshi v. State of Haryana2008 (2) KLT 1062Mentioned OnlyCited as a Supreme Court decision referenced in Gian Singh-related discussion but not applied as a direct rule in the present order.
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)PositiveGian Singh provides the guidelines for quashing under Section 482; the Kerala High Court relies on these guidelines to permit quashing in the context of a compoundable offence.
Bitan Singh Gupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.2018 (1) KLT Online 3156 (SC)Mentioned OnlyCited in the surrounding discussion of 482 power and compoundable offences but not independently applied as a direct rule in this decision.
Renjith v. State of Kerala2019 (4) KLT 5N41PositiveCited as part of Kerala decisions aligning with the principle that 482 power can be used to quash when ends of justice and settlement warrant.

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 P. P. Raghavan v. 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 C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 7TH ASWINA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 88 OF 2011 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 157/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II, PERAMBRA ``` ``` CRA 895/2008 OF THE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(MARAD CASES) ``` ## **`KOZHIKODE`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/S:`** ``` P.P.RAGHAVAN, S/O.SANKARAN POOLAKKAPOYIL HOUSE, NADUVANNUR.P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV SRI.SANTHARAM.P ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KUNIYIL PAVITHRAN , S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NADUVANNUR.P.O., KOZHIKODE.- 673 614. 2STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,, KOCHI-31. BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ J.R SUMEEN S.(K/000187/2012) ``` ``` Smt Pushpalatha M.K, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Crl.R.P. No.88 of 2011 **C. S. DIAS, J.** **`-------------------------` Crl.R.P. No.88 of 2011** **`-------------------------` Dated this the 29[th] day of September, 2023** ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed challenging the correctness and propriety of the judgment passed by the Court of the Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode (Appellate Court) in Crl.A. No.895/2008 confirming the judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perambra in C.C No.157/2007 (Trial Court), convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’). The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3 Crl.R.P. No.88 of 2011 ## **The prosecution case in brief** 2. The prosecution case was that the first accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/from the complainant and in discharge of the said debt, he had issued Ext P1 cheque assuring that the cheque would be honoured on presentation. However, the cheque was dishonoured with the reason ‘drawer differs’. On enquiry, the complainant learnt that the cheque belonged to the second accused. Even though the complainant issued Exts P3 and P6 lawyer notices to the accused, they did not pay the demanded amount. Hence, the accused with dishonest intention to deceive the complainant had issued Ext P1 cheque and have committed the offence under Sec.420 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. ## **Trial Court Judgment** 3. The Trial Court after appreciating the materials on record, convicted the first accused 4 Crl.R.P. No.88 of 2011 for an offence under Sec.420 of the IPC and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- . The second accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the first accused preferred Crl.A No.895/2008 before the Appellate Court. ## **The Appellate Court Judgment** 6. The Appellate Court, after reappreciating the materials on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused by the Trial Court. 7. It is questioning the concurrent judgments of the courts below that the first accused has filed the revision petition. 8. Heard; Sri.P.Santharam, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, 5 Crl.R.P. No.88 of 2011 Sri.J.R Prem Navaz, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Smt. Pushpalatha M.K. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the second respondent-State. 9. Today, when the revision petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison submitted that the subject matter in dispute between them has been settled and the first accused has filed Crl.M.Appl No.1/2023 stating that the offence committed by the revision petitioner/first accused may be compounded in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the revision petitioner and the first respondent have entered into a genuine settlement and the State has no objection in the revision petition being allowed in terms of Crl.M.Appl No.1/2023. 6 Crl.R.P. No.88 of 2011 11. This Court in **Soban v. State of Kerala [2021 (3) KLT Online 1179]** , after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Joshi v. State of Haryana [2008 (2) KLT 1062]; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]; Bitan Singh Gupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [2018 (1) KLT Online 3156 (SC)]** and decisions of this Court in **Renjith v. State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 5N41** **(C. No.56]** has held that if the requirements of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are satisfied, in the sense that it is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of criminal non- justice, proceedings involving compoundable offences can be quashed, notwithstanding the fact that the order of conviction has been passed against the accused provided the offence does not fall within the category of offences prohibited to be quashed as 7 Crl.R.P. No.88 of 2011 per the guidelines laid down in **Gian Singh (Supra)** and the other decisions on the point. 12. I am in total agreement with the . principles laid down in **Soban (Supra)** 13. Having considered the facts, on reading the affidavit of the second respondent and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited precedents, I am inclined to invoke the plenary powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below by the impugned judgments, which will augur the relationship and harmony between the parties and meet the ends of justice. 14. In the result, (i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Appellate Court in Crl. A No.895/2008 and confirmed by the Trial Court in C.C. No.157/2007, 8 Crl.R.P. No.88 of 2011 as against the revision petitioner/first accused are set aside. (ii) The bail bonds executed by the revision accused and the sureties are petitioner/first hereby cancelled. (iii) The fine amount that was remitted by the revision petitioner/first accused, pursuant to the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by this Court, shall be refunded to the revision petitioner, in accordance with law. **sd/-** **C. S. DIAS JUDGE** Sks/29.09.2023