High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-11-11Revision petition allowed; judgments set aside;...

T.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala and V.J. Baby

Case / Petition Number:Crl.R.P.No.3235 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2010-11-11
Court Decision / Holding: The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The court sets aside the prior judgments (C.C. No. 352 of 1999 and Crl.A. No. 942 of 2002), acquits the revision petitioner of all charges under Section 138 NI Act, and directs that the accused be set at liberty. The compounding of the offence under Section 138 NI Act has been recorded in terms of the parties’ settlement, and Rs.7500 has been deposited to KELSA as per the Supreme Court-guided directive. The order cites Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. as the governing principle for exercising discretion to compound offences in suitable cases.
Final Disposition: Revision petition allowed; judgments set aside; offence under Section 138 NI Act compounded; accused acquitted and released; compounding recorded; costs paid to KELSA.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T.K. Shaji, aged 42 years, s/o T.C. Krishnan, Thatttankudiyil Veed, Kakkuchira Puthenpura, Perumballur P.O., Muvattupuzha

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
V.J. Baby, Vattakkattu Veddu, South Marady Kara, Marady Village

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Peeyus A. Kottam
• Sri Naveen Thomas
• Sri K.V. Vimal

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri V. Tek Chand, Public Prosecutor for R1
• Sri C.R. Sanish for R2

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by T.K. Shaji challenging the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The trial court, and subsequently the VI Additional Sessions Court, found the accused guilty of the NI Act offence. A separate compounding petition under Section 147 of the NI Act and Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was pursued on the basis of an out-of-court settlement between the parties. The petitioner complied with the Court’s cost directive arising from a Supreme Court guideline in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457). In light of the settlement between the disputing parties, the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the judgments: the JFCM Court’s 1999 judgment in C.C. No. 352 of 1999 and the VI Addl. Sessions Court’s 2003 judgment in Crl.A. No. 942 of 2002, acquitting the petitioner of all charges and directing his release. The Court noted the contested offence had been compounded and the cost to KELSA had been deposited per the Supreme Court directive. The order reflects the court’s discretion to permit compounding of NI Act offences in appropriate cases, guided by Damodar S. Prabhu. The revision petition is thus allowed with acquittal and release of the accused.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457) doctrine on discretionary compounding of offences under the NI Act and the Court’s authority to permit such compounding in appropriate circumstances.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner’s counsel contends that the dispute between the accused and complainant has been settled out of court and the offence under Section 138 NI Act is capable of being compounded under the discretionary powers of this Court. The compounding petition, supported by both parties and countersigned by counsel, demonstrates settlement and compliance with applicable statutes, including the deposit of Rs.7500 to KELSA as directed by the Supreme Court’s Damodar S. Prabhu decision. In the light of the out-of-court settlement and the discretionary jurisprudence, the petitioner seeks quashing of the conviction and an acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents acknowledge the settlement and submit that all parties’ interests align with the public policy of resolving disputes amicably. They rely on the apex court guidance cited in Damodar S. Prabhu and contend that the court may exercise its discretion to permit compounding when appropriate, ensuring no miscarriage of justice and allowing the revival of the accused’s liberty in light of the settlement.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	The court relied on this Supreme Court decision to exercise its discretion to compound the NI Act offence and to permit out-of-court settlement.

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 T.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala and V.J. Baby 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 V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3235 of 2010 --------------------------------(CRA.942/2002 of VI ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.352/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------- T.K.SHAJI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. T.C.KRISHNAN, THATTANKUDIYIL VEEDU, KAKKUCHIRA PUTHENPURA, PERUMBALLOR.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS SRI.K.V.VIMAL RESPONDENTS(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682031 2. V.J.BABY, VATTAKKATTU VEEDU, SOUTH MARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE. PIN-686673. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND FOR R2. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SANISH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 3235 of 2010** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 11[th] day of November, 2010 ## **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. 10376/2010, 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 ## **Crl.R.P.No.3235 of 2010** ## **-: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 20.11.2002 in C.C.No.352 of 1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha and the judgment dated 9.6.2003 in Crl.A.No.942 of 2002 of the court of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam 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** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.P.No.3235 of 2010** ## **-:3:-** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 10376 of 2010 in Crl.R.P.No. 3235 of 2010** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 11[th] day of November, 2010. ## **ORDER** This is a joint petition filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') and 320 of the Crl.P.C. 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/accused and second respondent/ complainant has been settled out of court. It is also stated that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and since both the parties have sorted out the dispute, there is no need to proceed further with the case. 2. I have gone through the compounding petition ## **Crl.R.P.No.3235 of 2010** ## **-:4:-** and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions incorporated therein and the petition is signed by both the revision petitioner and the second 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.7500/- in the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, as per order dated 20.10.2010 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.7500/- being the cost to the KELSA, vide Receipt No.155 dated 2.11.2010 in terms of the decision of the ## **Crl.R.P.No.3235 of 2010** ## **-:5:-** 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 second 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.3235 of 2010** ## **-: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.3235 of 2010** ## **-: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.3235 of 2010** ## **-:8:-** **V.K.MOHANAN,** ## **J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------- J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.P.No.3235 of 2010** ## **-:9:-** DATED: -2- 2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No.3235 of 2010** ## **-:10:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . ## **Crl.R.P.No.3235 of 2010** ## **-:11:-** O.P.No. ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:..