Priya G Krishnan v. Cheriyan Daniel and State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2011-03-24
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.R.P. allowed; acquitting the revision petitioner of all charges and setting aside the judgment of conviction; the accused is acquitted and set at liberty. A compounding of the offence under section 138 NI Act was recorded in a separate order.
Final Disposition: Acquittal of the revision petitioner; petition allowed; conviction and all sentences set aside; accused released.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Priya G Krishnan

Respondents

Cheriyan Daniel, Alleppey Jewellers, M.C. Road, Chengannur
State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri. R. Bindu (Sasthamangalam)
• Sri. M. Sunilkumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri. S.R. Sreejith (for R1)
• Public Prosecutor Sri. V. Tek Chand (for R2)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Priya G Krishnan challenging two prior judgments: the conviction and sentence for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), as recorded in C.C. No.390 of 2006 (Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chengannur) and the subsequent appellate judgment in Crl.A. No.431 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, I, Mavelikkara. The Kerala High Court, before Justice V.K. Mohanan, on 24 March 2011, addressed the issue in the light of a recorded settlement between the accused and the first respondent (the complainant) and a compounding petition under section 147 NI Act, and section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The court noted that the parties had settled their dispute out of court, the complainant had no subsisting grievance, and both sides supported compounding, with the accused paying Rs.1500 to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority as per Supreme Court guidance in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. Based on this, the court allowed the revision petition, acquitted the petitioner of all charges, set aside the earlier judgments, and directed her to be released. The decision reflects the High Court’s utilization of the Supreme Court framework approving compounding where disputes are resolved and there is no ongoing grievance, even in NI Act cases.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., JT 2010(4) SC 457 (discretion to permit compounding in NI Act cases)
Discretion to compound offences under Cr.P.C. 320(8) in appropriate circumstances, especially when there is a settlement and no subsisting grievance.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition and subsequent compounding petition record that the dispute has been settled out of court, the complainant has no subsisting grievance, and the parties consent to compounding; the petitioner has complied with the Court’s costs and seeks acquittal under the Supreme Court-guided framework (Damodar S. Prabhu).

Contentions of Respondents

The complainant has no ongoing grievance and consents to compounding; the Court is urged to recognize the settlement and allow compounding in light of decisions permitting such disposition when there is no subsisting grievance.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Cited to justify the court’s discretionary power to permit compounding of offences under NI Act when there is a settlement and no subsisting grievance, following Supreme Court guidance.

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 THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH, 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 829 of 2011() -----------------------------------(CRA.431/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.390/2006 of COURT OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------- PRIYA.G.KRISHNAN, NOOTAMBATHIL, PAZHAVEEDU.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENTS(S): - ------------------------1. CHERIYAN DANIEL, ALLEPPEY JEWELLERS, M.C.ROAD, CHENGANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 829 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 24[th] 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 she is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 2700/2011, 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 ## **Crl.R.P.No.829 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 11.8.2008 in C.C.No.390 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur and the judgment dated 19.2.2009 in Crl.A.No.431 of 2008 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against her in the above case and she is set at liberty. ## The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No.829 of 2011** ## **-:3:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.M.A.No. 2700 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 829 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 24[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 the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent has been settled out of court and the first respondent/complainant has no subsisting grievance as against the petitioner/accused. It is also stated that the first respondent/complainant 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 ## **Crl.R.P.No.829 of 2011** ## **-:4:-** 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.1500/-, as per order dated 09.03.2011 so as to enable her to move this Court to compound the offence for which she is convicted and sentenced. The revision petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1500/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide, Receipt No.256 dated 15.03.2011 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the ## **Crl.R.P.No.829 of 2011** ## **-:5:-** 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.829 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.829 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.829 of 2011** ## **-:8:-** **V.K.MOHANAN,** ## **J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------- J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.P.No.829 of 2011** ## **-:9:-** DATED: -2- 2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No.829 of 2011** ## **-:10:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . ## **Crl.R.P.No.829 of 2011** ## **-:11:-** O.P.No. ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:..