V. C. Tharuth v. State of Kerala and Thankachan P. John

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2011-01-20
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.R.P. allowed; acquitting the accused under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C; setting aside the judgments in S.T. No. 1381 of 2000 and Crl.A. No. 302 of 2004; compounding of the offence recorded; party to be set at liberty; costs paid to KELSA as per Supreme Court guidance.
Final Disposition: Acquittal of the accused after recording compounding of the offence under Section 138 NI Act; judgments set aside; case disposed with liberty granted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. C. Tharuth

Respondents

State of Kerala, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Thankachan P. John

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Rajesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri V. Tek Chand
• Sri P. Binny Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

V. C. Tharuth, the revision petitioner, stood convicted for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court and up the ladder in appeal. The High Court’s January 2011 proceedings pivot on a compounding petition under section 147 NI Act and an accompanying cost payment, prompted by a settlement between the accused and the complainant. The court, invoking the Supreme Court’s Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. guidelines, recorded a composition and, under section 320(8) Cr.P.C., acquitted the petitioner of all charges. The judgment set aside the earlier orders: the 9 March 2004 judgment in S.T. No. 1381 of 2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam and the 13 January 2005 judgment in Crl.A. No. 302 of 2004 of the District & Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, directing the petitioner to be at liberty. The High Court also recorded compliance with costs fixed by the court, paid to Kerala State Legal Services Authority, pursuant to Damodar S. Prabhu, and noted out‑of‑court settlement between the parties. Separate M.A. 594/2011 and incidental delay‑condonation orders form part of the record, illustrating the court’s insistence on settlement and efficiency while ensuring due process.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Apex Court guidelines permitting compounding of offences in NI Act cases (Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., JT 2010(4) SC 457)
Power to compound offences under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C in light of compromise between the parties

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the compounding of the offence under Section 138 NI Act is permissible in view of the compromise between the parties and the Supreme Court’s Damodar S. Prabhu guidelines; payment of costs to KELSA and terms recorded in the compounding petition justify acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., consequently seeking dismissal of the prior judgments.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents support settlement and compounding in the interests of judicial economy, noting that the complainant is no longer aggrieved and that the terms of settlement should permit recording of compounding and resultant acquittal.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Cited as Supreme Court guideline permitting compounding of offences in NI Act cases; used to justify compounding and payment of costs.

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 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 195 of 2011()** **-----------------------------** **CRA.302/2004 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ST.1381/2000 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM** **....................** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED** **------------------------------------------------------------------** **V.C.THARUTH, VITHAYATHIL, VARAPUZHA P.O., MANNAMTHURUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **2. THANKACHAN P.JOHN,** **PARAMKUNNEL, THALAKKODU.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V.TEK CHAND R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.BINNY JOSEPH** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 195 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 20[th] day of January, 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. 594/2011, 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 ## **Crl.R.P.No.195 of 2011** ## **-: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 9.3.2004 in S.T.No.1381 of 2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam and the judgment dated 13.1.2005 in Crl.A.No.302 of 2004 of the court of the District and 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.195 of 2011** ## **-:3:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No. 594 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No. 195 of 2011** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 20[th] day of January,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 the revision petitioner/accused and the second respondent/complainant has settled the dispute, which is the subject matter in the revision petition. It is also stated that the second respondent/complainant is no longer aggrieved by the acts of the accused, in dishonouring the cheque, which led to the filing of S.T.No.1381 of 2000 of the J.F.C.M.Court, Kothamangalam. **Crl.R.P.No.195 of 2011** ## **-:4:-** 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 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 by depositing a sum of Rs.5000/- in the KELSA being the cost for filing the compounding petition as per order dated 5.1.2011 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.5000/- being the cost for filing the compounding ## **Crl.R.P.No.195 of 2011** ## **-:5:-** petition to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.211 dated 13.1.2011 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 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.195 of 2011** **-: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 ## **Crl.R.P.No.195 of 2011** ## **-:7:-** 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.195 of 2011 -:8:-** **==> picture [397 x 396] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ---------------------------- -------- J U D G M E N **----- End of picture text -----** T ## **Crl.R.P.No.195 of 2011** ## **-:9:-** DATED: -2- 2010 ## **Crl.R.P.No.195 of 2011** ## **-:10:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. ## **Crl.R.P.No.195 of 2011** ## **-:11:-** **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:..