Raji v. Radha Jayadas and The State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2011-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.R.P. No. 836 of 2011 is allowed. The judgment dated 27.08.2009 in C.C. No. 463 of 2007 and the judgment dated 23.12.2010 in Crl.A. No. 409 of 2009 are set aside. The accused is acquitted of all charges under Section 138 NI Act in terms of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The court records the composition of the offence and directs release from jail, with the registry to communicate the order to the Sub Jail, Mavelikkara.
Final Disposition: Acquittal of the revision petitioner; release from custody following compounding of the offence; judgments of lower courts set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Raji

Respondents

Radha Jayadas
The State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Vincent Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• Radha Jayadas - Bhavana Velayudhan
• The State of Kerala - Sabu Sreedharan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioner, Raji, challenging a conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam, and confirmed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Mavelikkara. The trial court’s verdict found the petitioner guilty under the NI Act and a corresponding sentence was imposed. On 22 March 2011, this High Court (V.K. Mohanan, J.) invoked its power under Cr.P.C. and by a separate order in Crl.M.A. No. 2732/2011 entertained a compounding petition under section 147 NI Act, arising from the dispute around section 138. The parties had amicably settled their differences; the petitioner paid Rs. 5,000 as costs to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KELSA) in compliance with a Supreme Court guideline (Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.). The court recorded the composition and, in terms of section 320(8) Cr.P.C., acquitted the petitioner, setting aside the lower court judgments. The order directed release from custody and communicated the result to the Sub Jail, Mavelikkara. The decision emphasizes the court’s discretionary power to allow compounding in appropriate circumstances where parties settle disputes under the NI Act.”

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner and the complainant have amicably settled their dispute and agreed to compound the offence under Section 138 NI Act. The petitioner has complied with the terms including payment of costs (Rs. 5,000 to KELSA) as guided by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. The petition seeks acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. based on the settlement and compounding of the offence, arguing that continued prosecution serves no purpose where the parties have settled and the offender has satisfied the terms. The court’s discretion to allow compounding in such scenarios is invoked to prevent unnecessary incarceration and to effect justice in light of compromise.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents support an amicable settlement that resolves the dispute by compounding the offence, provided terms are fair and properly recorded. The State’s counsel aligns with upholding the decision to permit compounding under the guidance of the Apex Court’s Damodar S. Prabhu decision and ensuring compliance with cost payments and procedural formalities.

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 discretionary power to compound offences under Section 138 NI Act after amicable settlement; applied to permit compounding and acquittal.

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. 836 of 2011 ---------------------------------- ( CRA.409/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.463/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- RAJI, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. REGHUNATHAN, 'SOUPARNIKAYIL', CHIRAKADAVUM MURI, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH RESPONDENTS(S): ------------------------- 1. RADHA JAYADAS, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.K.P.JAYADAS, DHANYAYIL, CHIRAKADAVUM MURI, KAYAMKULAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN FOR R1. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN FOR R2. 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. 836 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 her guilty and accordingly she is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No. 2732/2011, 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 Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. ## **Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011** ## **:-2-:** 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 27.8.2009 in C.C.No.463 of 2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam and the judgment dated 23.12.2010 in Crl.A.No.409 of 2009 of the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Mavelikkara and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against her in the above case and she is set at liberty. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is arrested and now, she is in the Sub Jail, Mavelikkara and she may be ordered to be released in the light of the acquittal recorded by this court. In the light of the order passed by this Court acquitting the revision petitioner/accused, she is entitled to get released from jail forthwith in case she is not required in any other case. Therefore, the Registry is directed to ## **Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011** **:-3-:** forward the gist of this order to the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Mavelikkara for further action. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ **Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011** **:-4-:** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 2732 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 836 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 during the pendency of the cases, the petitioner and the respondent have settled the matter amicably whereby the petitioner has paid to the respondent the entire amount due to her as per the transaction involved in the case. 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/accused and the first respondent in the ## **Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011** **:-5-:** Crl.R.P./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 a sum of Rs.5000/-in the KELSA as per order dated 21.3.2011 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.5000/being cost in the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.267 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 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 ## **Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011** ## **:-6-:** composition is recorded. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/- ## **Crl.R.P.No.836 of 2011** **:-7-:**