P.P. Rajesh Kumar v. State of Kerala & S.V. Prasanna Kumar

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2011-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: The Crl.R.P. is allowed; acquitting the accused of all charges and setting aside the judgments of the trial court (C.C.496/2002) and the appellate court (Crl.A.311/2004). The offence under Section 138 NI Act is recorded as compounded upon the parties’ consent, with the petitioner released. The compounding petition (Crl.M.A.2430/2010) and the earlier deposit under the Supreme Court directive are acknowledged.
Final Disposition: Acquittal of the revision petitioner; lower court judgments set aside; matter ended through compounding and release of the accused

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.P. Rajesh Kumar, W/o A.K. Purushothaman, Pedikaparambil House, Pallom P.O., Kottayam

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
S. V. Prasanna Kumar, S/o P. Vasudevan Pillai, Sreemandiramm, Kuzhimattom P.O., Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P.V. Bijumon

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Smt. Diji K. Dasan (for R2)
• Public Prosecutor Sri. Sabu Sreedharan (for R1)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petition under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. (Crl.Rev.Pet.No.778 of 2011) filed by P.P. Rajesh Kumar, who was convicted for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam (C.C.496/2002) and affirmed by the Sessions Court (Crl.A.No.311/2004). The High Court of Kerala, in a brief, yet decisive order dated 22 March 2011, allowed the revision petition after recording that the offence had been settled amicably between the parties and that the complainant no longer wished to prosecute. Earlier, the Court had directed that the parties pay costs as per a Supreme Court guideline in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. and had permitted filing of a compounding petition (Crl.M.A.2430/2010). The Court noted that the compounding under section 147 of the NI Act had been effected and the parties complied with conditions in the petition. On this basis, the High Court acquitted the petitioner, set aside the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, and directed his release. The order underscores the Court’s discretionary power to compound such offences, particularly where settlement and no-prosecution are established through mediation and mutual agreement.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C.Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner sought compounding under Section 138 NI Act in the light of an amicable settlement mediated between the parties and the complainant’s withdrawal of prosecution. He points to compliance with the Court-ordered costs per the Supreme Court guideline in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., and argues for acquittal under the exercise of inherent discretionary power upon compounding. The petition and compromise were signed by both parties and countersigned by counsel.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents concede to the amicable settlement and the complainant’s lack of ongoing grievance; the first respondent does not intend to prosecute further, which supports the move to compound the offence and terminate the proceedings.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Used as the guiding Supreme Court decision to permit compounding and relate costs under the discretionary framework of Cr.P.C. 320(8), guiding the High Court’s order in this case.

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 TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 778 of 2011 ----------------------------------CRA.311/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (SPL.COURT), KOTTAYAM CC.496/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- P.P.RAJESH KUMAR, W/O.A.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BIJUMON RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.V.PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O.P.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, SREEMANDIRAM, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.DIJI.K.DASAN FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN FOR R1. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 778 of 2011 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 22[nd] day of March, 2011 ## **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. 2430/2010, 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) SC 457]. In the light of the composition of the offence between the ## **Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011** ## **-:2:-** 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 17.5.2004 in C.C.No.496 of 2002 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam and the judgment dated 6.10.2006 in Crl.A.No.311 of 2004 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Spl.), Kottayam 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.778 of 2011** ## **-:3:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 2430 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 778 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 22[nd] 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 conciliation talks were going on in the mediation of elders and both the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and now the complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner with respect to the claim made in C.C.No.496 of 2002. The first respondent does not intend to prosecute the matter any further. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition **Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011** ## **-:4:-** 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.1250/-, as per order dated 14.3.2011 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.1250/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.201 dated 28.12.2010 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am ## **Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011** ## **-:5:-** satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in 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. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011** ## **-: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 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. ## **Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011** ## **-:7:-** 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.No.778 of 2011** ## **-:8:-** **V.K.MOHANAN,** ## **J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------- J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011** ## **-:9:-** DATED: -2- 2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011** ## **-:10:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . ## **Crl.R.P.No.778 of 2011** ## **-:11:-** O.P.No. ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:..