Rajan v. K.M. Santhosan and State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2011-05-27
Court Decision / Holding: CRRP 1369/11 allowed; acquittal of the accused under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.; judgments of lower courts set aside; composition recorded; accused set at liberty.
Final Disposition: Revision petition allowed; accused acquitted; composition recorded; petitioner set at liberty; judgments of lower courts set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajan

Respondents

K.M. Santhosan
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Pulikkoool Abubacker
• Sri. Zubair Pulikkoool

Counsels for Respondents

• Sajeevan Kurukkuttiyullathil for R1
• N.F. John Joseph Thomas for R1
• P.P. Sri V. Tek Chand for R2

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, at Ernakulam, presided over by Justice V.K. Mohanan, heard CRRP 1369/11 (Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1369 of 2011) arising from a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner Rajan had been convicted by the trial court and affirmed by the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara. By a separate order in Crl.M.A.No.12120/2010, the court allowed parties to compound the offence, recording a composition after the complainant had received the entire amount. The High Court noted the compliance with conditions including cost payments as fixed by this Court, guided by the Apex Court’s Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. and the Supreme Court’s compounding jurisprudence. On this basis, the court allowed the Crl.R.P. acquitting the petitioner under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The judgment dated 27 May 2011 sets aside the earlier judgments (C.C.No.825/2000 and related proceedings) and orders the discharge and liberty of the petitioner. The compounding petition was deemed in order, countersigned by counsel, with reliance on the Apex Court’s decision in Rajeswari v. Jagadish. Overall, the revision petition is allowed, and the accused is acquitted in terms of the recorded composition.

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

Compounding of offences under the NI Act permitted under Cr.P.C. 320(8); Supreme Court guidelines (Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.)
Apex Court precedent (Rajeswari v. Jagadish) supporting compounding petitions and procedural acceptance

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner sought compounding under Section 147 NI Act and, upon settlement with the complainant who had received the full amount, argued that the offence under Section 138 NI Act could be compounded; the petition was supported by costs fixed by this Court under the apex court guidelines (Damodar S. Prabhu) and by compliance with the separate compounding order.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents acknowledged settlement; they did not wish to prosecute further, and supported compounding, with the petition countersigned by their counsel; no objection to closing the matter in light of the settlement.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Cited as the guideline for costs and as authority supporting compounding under Cr.P.C. 320(8).
Rajeswari v. Jagadish	2008(2)KLT SN 41 (C.No.50)SC	Positive	Apex Court decision referred to in validating the compounding petition and its procedural acceptance.

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 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1369 of 2011() -----------------------------CRA.411/2002 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.825/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- RAJAN, S/O.CHATHU, AGED 29 YEARS, MARIYAKUNI HOUSE, ERAMALA AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. K.M.SANTHOSHAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 27 YEARS, "SOPANAM", THURAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL FOR R1 SRI.N.F.JOHN JOSEPH THOMAS FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. R.P. No.1369 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------** Dated 27th Day of May , 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. 12120/2010, 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 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 CRRP 1369/11 ## **-:2:-** aside the judgment dated 24.7.2002 in C.C.No.825 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara, and the judgment dated 11.2.2005 of the Ist Addl.Sessions Judge, Kozhikode 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** kvm/- CRRP 1369/11 **-:3:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No.12120 of 2010 in** CRRP 1369/11 **-:4:-** ## **CRL.R.P.No.1369 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated 30[th] day of May, 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 during the pendency of the cases, the entire dispute was settled and the first respondent/complainant has received the entire amount covered by the cheque in dispute. The first respondent/complainant does not intend to prosecute the petitioner/revision petitioner any further in the matter. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions incorporated therein and the petition. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Rajeswari v.** CRRP 1369/11 ## **-:5:-** **Jagadish** {(2008(2)KLT SN 41 (C.No.50)SC}, the petition is in order, though it is signed by the wife of the revision petitioner, who is abroad and the first respondent/complainant, since the petition is 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 compounding petition depositing Rs.3,500/-, as per order dated 3.11.2010 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.3,500/- towards cost in the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.126 dated 15.12.2010 in terms of the decision of the Supreme CRRP 1369/11 ## **-:6:-** Court. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the revision petitioner's wife 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** kvm/- CRRP 1369/11 **-:7:-**