High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-12-02Revision allowed; conviction under NI Act set a...

Thulasi A.V. v. Santhosh Kumar Santhosh Bhavan & State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.R.P.No.464 of 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2015-12-02
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petition allowed. The offence under Section 138 NI Act is compounded; the conviction is set aside; the accused is discharged. The petitioner is directed to pay ₹1,000 to the High Court Legal Service Committee within two days. The ₹25,000 deposited in the trial court is to be disbursed to the 1st respondent as per the terms of the compromise. The trial court is to report compliance.
Final Disposition: Revision allowed; conviction under NI Act set aside; offence compounded; accused discharged; payment to HC Legal Service Committee and disbursement of deposited amount to respondent as per compromise; compliance to be reported.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thulasi A.V.

Respondents

Santhosh Kumar Santhosh Bhavan, Puliyoor P.O., Chengannur
State of Kerala rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smt. Asha Elizabeth Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Jishamol Cleetus
• Sri. N. Suresh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court judgment concerns Crl.R.P. No. 464 of 2008, filed by Thulasi A.V., challenging the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Chengannur, and later confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Ad hoc), Mavelikara. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ₹90,000 and issued a cheque dishonoured for want of funds. After due notice and complaint, the trial court convicted the accused and imposed a three-month simple imprisonment plus compensation of ₹90,000 under Section 357(3) CrPC, with a default sentence. The revision petition and accompanying appeal were driven by settlement discussions between the parties, culminating in an out-of-court settlement for a total sum of ₹75,000. The revision petitioner paid ₹50,000 on 23.11.2015 and deposited ₹25,000 in the trial court; the parties agreed that the ₹25,000 deposited would be paid to the complainant as part of the final settlement. The court held that Section 147 NI Act makes offences under the NI Act compoundable, and upon compounding, it has the effect of an acquittal under Section 320(8) CrPC. Accordingly, Crl.M.A. 6834/2015 was allowed, the conviction under Section 138 set aside, and the petitioner discharged, subject to a ₹1,000 payment to the High Court Legal Service Committee. The trial court was directed to disburse the ₹25,000 deposit to the respondent in accordance with the compromise. The decision relied on the Apex Court’s Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 147Cr.P.C., Section 357(3)Cr.P.C., Section 320(8)Cr.P.C., 1973 (Notwithstanding clause)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable
Compounding the offence has the effect of an acquittal under Cr.P.C. Section 320(8)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the matter was settled out of court for a total of ₹75,000 with involvement of relatives and local dignitaries; paid ₹50,000 and deposited ₹25,000 in court; seeks compounding under Section 147 NI Act and withdrawal of the remaining proceedings in light of the compromise.

Contentions of Respondents

Not expressly contested; the respondents consent to the settlement terms and request the court to uphold compounding and disbursement as per compromise, including payment of₹25,000 deposited in court to the respondent as final settlement.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal	2010 (2) KLT 587(SC)	Positive	Cited to justify that compounding of an NI Act offence results in acquittal per Cr.P.C. 320(8); supports the court’s order allowing compounding and setting aside conviction.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Thulasi A.V. v. Santhosh Kumar Santhosh Bhavan & State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 464 of 2008 ()** **------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.442/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK (ADHOC) MAVELIKKARA DATED 14-11-2007** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 769/2004 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE.-I, CHENGANNUR DATED 18-08-2006** **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------------** **THULASI.A.V.** **KARTHIKA HOUSE, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, OATHARA WEST MURI THIRUVALLA.** **BY ADV. SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:** **------------------------------------** **1. SANTHOSH KUMAR SANTHOSH BHAVAN, PULIYOOR P.O., CHENGANOOR.** **2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS** **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.JISHAMOL CLEETUS** **R2 BT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **acd** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.464 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of December, 2015 ## **ORDER** Revision petitioner, who is the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.442/2006 on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikara, challenges the concurrent conviction u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act ). He was the accused in C.C.No.769/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of 90,000/- to the complainant u/s.357(3)₹ Cr.P.C., with a default sentence of two months simple imprisonment. Against that, he preferred the above appeal, Crl.R.P.No.464/2008 2 in which the conviction was confirmed and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this revision petition. 2. The complainant's case is that the accused borrowed a sum of 90,000/- from him and in discharge of₹ that debt, he issued Ext.P1 cheque. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. He issued a statutory notice and demanded the amount from the accused. But, there was no repayment. Hence, he filed the complaint. The complainant was examined as PW1 and his documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P7. The accused examined DW1 and marked Exts.D1 to D9. The trial Court convicted the accused. 3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that Crl.R.P.No.464/2008 3 the parties have settled the matter out of Court for a total sum of 75,000/- with the involvement of close₹ relatives and local respectable persons. As part of the settlement, the revision petitioner has paid 50,000/- to₹ the complainant on 23.11.2015 and a sum of 25,000/- has₹ been deposited in the trial Court as per the direction of this Court and they mutually agreed that ₹25,000/deposited in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur will be withdrawn and paid to the 1[st] respondent as final settlement. 4. According to Section 147 of the N.I. Act, the offence is compoundable. Section 147 of N.I. Act reads thus:- “Offences to be compoundable - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” Crl.R.P.No.464/2008 4 When an offence is compounded by the parties, it is advisable to drop the criminal proceedings according to the settlement between the accused and the complainant. When offence is compounded, it has the effect of an acquittal as per Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. with whom the offence has been compounded. Accordingly, Crl.M.A.No. 6834/2015 is allowed. The revision petitioner and the 1[st] respondent are permitted to compound the offence for a total sum of 75,000/- as full and final settlement. The₹ revision petitioner already paid 50,000/- and the balance₹ amount of 25,000/- can be adjusted with the amount₹ deposited in the trial Court. In the result, the conviction u/s.138 of the N.I. Act is set aside and the revision petitioner is set at liberty, provided he shall pay 1000/- to the High Court Legal₹ Service Committee within two days in the light of the Crl.R.P.No.464/2008 5 decision of the Apex Court in **Damodar S. Prabhu** v. **Sayed Babalal** [2010 (2) KLT 587(SC)]. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Chengannur is directed to disburse ₹25,000/- deposited by the revision petitioner to the 1st respondent according to the terms of the compromised entered between them. Post on 04.12.2015 for reporting compliance. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.R.P.No.464/2008 6 Crl.R.P.No.464/2008 7