Y.A. Fazil v. Gopalakrishnan Nair and The State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2011-04-11
Court Decision / Holding: This Crl.Revision petition is allowed; setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court; acquitting the accused; recording the composition; the accused is set at liberty; compounding is recorded and costs paid.
Final Disposition: Acquittal of the accused; case disposed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Y.A. Fazil

Respondents

Gopalakrishnan Nair
The State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Shajin S. Hameed

Counsels for Respondents

• K.K. DheerendraKrishnan
• Smt. Rekha C. Nayar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment concerns a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Y.A. Fazil, the accused in a cheque-bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court convicted Fazil, a verdict that was affirmed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate and the Addl. Sessions Judge in Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. On 11 April 2011, the Kerala High Court, in a separate order on Crl.M.A.No.3223/2011, permitted the parties to compound the offence, based on a settlement reached during the pendency of the proceedings. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. decision, JT 2010(4) SC 457, which governs compounding of cheque offences and the consequential consequences. Fazil had paid the required costs, and both sides signed the compounding petition, countersigned by counsel. As a result, the court concluded that the revision petition should be allowed under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., recording the composition of the offence and acquitting Fazil of all charges. The court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, and directed Fazil’s release. The order also notes payment by Fazil of Rs.8000 as costs to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. The decision emphasizes the evolving jurisprudence permitting out‑of‑court settlements in NI Act cases to result in acquittal.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that the offence under Section 138 NI Act has been settled by compounding under Section 147 NI Act, with payment of costs; The petition is filed seeking to compound; The settlement with the complainant and compliance with costs justifies acquittal under Sec. 320(8) Cr.P.C; The Court's order aligns with Damodar S. Prabhu's guidelines.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents advocate compliance with the statutory process; The compounding is permissible where terms are satisfied; The court's discretion is exercised in light of Supreme Court guidelines; The compounding petition has been countersigned by counsel.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Court relies on the Supreme Court guidance in Damodar S. Prabhu to permit compounding of offences under NI Act in the given context.

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 MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 986 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.918/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK 1), TRIVANDRUM ST.719/2006 of 2006 OF JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VIII THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... ## REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- Y.A.FAZIL, RANEES, OPPOSITE VIGILANCE OFFICE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED ## RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SMRITHY, BHAGAVATHY NADA, VEDIVECHANCOIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 501. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ## ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN FOR R1 ## R2 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl. R.P. No.986 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------** Dated 11th Day of April , 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. 3223/2011, 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. 3. In the result, this Crl.Revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated in S.T.No.719 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- VIII, Thiruvananthapuram and the judgment dated 12..3..2009 in Crl.A.No.918/2009 of the Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-I, Thiruvananthapruam 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** kvm/- ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------Crl. M.A.No.3223 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No.986 of 2011** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 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 petitioner/revision petitioner any further in the matter. 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 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.8000/- as per order dated 29.3.2011 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.8000/being cost to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, vide Receipt No.280 dated 4.4.2011 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** kvm/- kvm/- ## **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. 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/ ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -----------------------------------J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . O.P.No. ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:.. This Crl.Revision Petition is preferred by the sole accused in C.C.No..... on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, ... and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No..... of the Addl.Sessions Judge, ......... The revision petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The cheque in question involved is for an amount of Rs.......This Court passed an order today allowing the compounding petition filed by the revision petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent, countersigned by their respective counsels. In the light of the fact that the offence has been compounded by the parties to the dispute, I am of the view that this Crl.Revision Petition can be allowed setting aside the judgments of the courts below. In the result, this Crl.R.P is allowed setting aside the judgment dated ...... in ..... of the JFCM-II, ...... and the judgment dated in Crl.A.No...... of the Addl. Sessions Judge, ...... Court-II, Alappuzha and acquitting the accused. The Crl.R.P is allowed as above. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** kvm/- .