S. Lalithambika v. G. Manikantan Nair

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2011-12-22
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.R.P. allowed; setting aside the judgment of conviction; acquitting the revision petitioner under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.; recording the composition; directing release of the petitioner from custody; forwarding order to Women’s Prison; compounding of the offence recorded.
Final Disposition: The revision petition is allowed; judgments set aside; acquittal recorded; offender to be released; compounding of the offence noted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

S. Lalithambika

Respondents

G. Manikantan Nair
State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V. John Sebastian
• Sri K.J. Joseph (Ernakulam)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.J. Saji Isaac (for R1)
• Public Prosecutor SMT A. Lowsy

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, S. Lalithambika, is a former Attender in the Animal Husbandry Department who faced a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court and the subsequent appellate court recorded conviction, but the Kerala High Court, on 22 December 2011, intervened in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.3050/2011 and related Crl.M.A.No.11028/2011, allowing a settlement between the parties to be recorded as a compromise under the principle later echoed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. The court noted that the complainant had received the entire amount and did not intend to prosecute further. On that basis, the High Court acquitted the petitioner under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., and set aside the earlier judgments that had convicted her (S.T. No. 349/2006 and Crl.A. No. 517/2006). The order directs the petitioner’s release from prison, if not required in any other case, and records the composition of the offence, in line with Supreme Court guidance. Additionally, the court directed the registry to inform the Women’s Prison about the acquittal and release. The decision emphasizes that compounding, supported by costs deposited, yields an acquittal and ends the prosecution.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act on settlement, guided by Apex Court Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the offence under Section 138 NI Act could be compounded in view of the out-of-court settlement. The compounding petition and the order recording settlement indicate that the first respondent received the entire amount and does not intend to prosecute further. The petitioner asserts compliance with costs fixed by the court in line with the Supreme Court guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. The court should exercise its power under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. to acquit and direct release from custody, given the recorded composition and ends of justice. The decision would align with the settlement and avoid unjust continued confinement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents support compounding in light of the settlement, noting that the complainant has received full settlement and does not wish to prosecute. The compounding petition was properly signed and countersigned by counsel, with the State authority endorsing withdrawal of prosecution. They rely on Supreme Court guidelines for compounding and submit that recording the composition serves substantive justice and public interest while finalizing the matter.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Cited to justify compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act upon settlement, 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 22ND DECEMBER, 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3050 of 2011 ------------------------------------[CRA.517/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , S.T.NO.349 OF 2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VIII, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------S.LALITHAMBIKA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. LATE PRABHAKARAN, ATTENDER (RETD), ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BAHAN, TRIVANDRUM, NOW RESIDING AT PAZHAYA VEEDU, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 012. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. G. MANIKANTAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, KAIRALI MANDIRAM, PAROTTUKONAM, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM - 695 021. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PRSOECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682031. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC FOR R1 BY PUBLIC POROSECUTOR SMT.A.LOWSY. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 3050 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 22[nd] day of December, 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. 11028/2011, 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) **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 ## **-:2:-** of Cr.P.C. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 9.5.2006 in S.T.No. 349 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram and the judgment dated 10.3.2008 in Crl.A.No.517 of 2006 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram and acquitting the revision petitioner of all the charges levelled against her in the above case and she is set at liberty. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the judgments of the courts below, the revision petitioner was arrested and now she is undergoing imprisonment in the Women's Prison, Attakulangara, Trivandrum and she may be ordered to be released in the light of the acquittal recorded by this Court. 5. In the light of the order passed by this Court acquitting the revision petitioner/accused, she is entitled to get released **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 ## **-:3:-** from jail forthwith in case she is not required in any other case. Therefore, the Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Women's Prison, Attakulangara, Trivandrum . The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 **-:4:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No.11028 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 3050 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 22[nd] day of December, 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 matter 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 matter any further. 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 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 **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 ## **-:5:-** 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 `.7500/-, as per order dated 22.12.2011 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 `.7500/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No. 494 dated 22.12.2011 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 composition is recorded. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** MBS/ **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 **-: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 **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 **-:7:-** 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. 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.3050 of 201** 1 ## **-:8:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------- - **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 ## **-:9:-** J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 ## **-:10:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** ## **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 ## **-:11:-** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** ## **Crl.R.P.No.3050 of 201** 1 ## **-:12:-** Dated:..