ORDER

Viju Abraham, J.—The above Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner who is an accused in C.C.No.340 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Ernakulam, for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court as per Annexure-A2 judgment convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.7,17,000/- with a default clause of three months. The appeal filed by the petitioner as Crl.Appeal No.148 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Ernakulam was dismissed as per Annexure-A3 judgment. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner as Crl.R.P.No.41 of 2020 was disposed of as per Annexure-A4 order by affirming the conviction but modifying the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year as a sentence to pay fine of Rs.7,17,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner/accused was granted a period of six months to remit the amount of fine in the trial court.

2. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner paid the entire amount of compensation/fine to the complainant/2nd respondent herein and a receipt was also issued by the complainant acknowledging the payment. The said receipt was produced before the trial court and the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.315 of 2021 before the trial court to close the case and to recall the non bailable warrant pending against the petitioner since the entire compensation has been paid to the complainant. But, the said petition was dismissed by the trial court as per Annexure-A1 order holding that since the direction in Annexure-A4 order of this Court was to remit the amount of fine in the trial court and since the petitioner has directly paid the amount to the complainant, the court is not in a position to accept the receipt of acknowledgement of money issued by the complainant. It is challenging Annexure-A1 order passed in C.M.P.No.315 of 2021 in C.C.No.340 of 2014 that the present case is filed. In support of the contention the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Sivankutty v. John Thomas (2012(4) KLT 21).

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that even though in Annexure-A4 order the petitioner was directed to remit the amount of fine in the trial court, she has paid the amount directly to the complainant who is the 2nd respondent herein.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that she has received the entire amount of compensation and has also issued a receipt acknowledging reception of the amount. Further that, the 2nd respondent has also filed an affidavit before this Court as Annexure-A5 stating that she has received the entire amount of compensation and a receipt has been issued by her.

6. This Court has occasion to consider a similar issue in Beena v. Balakrishnan (2010 (2) KLT 1017) and held as follows:

“5. That however, cannot be the end of the matter so far as grievance of petitioners is concerned. According to the petitioners they have already paid amount payable to respondent No.1. That is revealed from petitions filed by them in this Court. True, by the final orders disposing of Revision Petitions this Court while modifying the sentence as simple imprisonment till rising of the court sentenced petitioners to payment of fine which is to be deposited in the court concerned and directed that fine if realised will be paid to respondent No.1 under S.357(1)(b) of the Code. The proper procedure for petitioners was to deposit fine in the court concerned so that such court would pay the said amount to respondent No.1 as provided under S.357(1)(b) of the Code after making necessary entries in the fine register of that court. Now that petitioners have paid the amount to res