Alexander Thomas, J.

1. The petitioner herein is the accused for offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C. No. 101/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner availed the facility of plea bargaining as envisaged in S. 265B of Chapter XXIA of the Cr.P.C. Ext. P-2(1) is stated to be the statement of mutually satisfactory disposition said to have been arrived at between the petitioner-accused and R-2 complainant under S. 265C of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused has stated that he is ready to plead guilty of the above offence and pay the fine ordered by the court and further that the complainant has no objection in accepting the plea of the accused if an amount of Rs. 4.5 lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) is paid as compensation to the complainant under S. 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The complainant had no objection in granting a period of 5 months to the accused for paying the fine/compensation amount. Ext. P-2(4) is the application for plea bargaining filed by the petitioner under S. 265A of the Cr.P.C. and Ext. P-2(3) is the affidavit filed along with the said application. Ext. P-2(2) is stated to be the report of the mutually satisfactory disposition. Ext. P-3 is the order passed by the learned Magistrate under S. 265E regarding the disposal of the matter, whereby the Magistrate has accepted the mutually satisfactory disposition in his plea bargaining and had ordered that the petitioner is found guilty of the offence under S. 138 of the N.I. Act and that he is sentenced to pay compensation of Rs. 4.5 lakhs to the complainant under S. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default thereof he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, etc. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned Ext. P-3 order/judgment passed by the trial court accepting the plea bargaining is in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions which regulate the procedure for plea bargaining contained in Chapter XXIA of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that the slightest deviation thereof would result in the negation of fundamental rights of the accused and none of the vital procedure prescribed to be followed before accepting the plea bargaining has been complied with, except for the minimal formalities. Further, most importantly, the trial court has not examined the petitioner-accused in the absence of the complainant under in camera as per the mandatory provisions contained in sub-s.(4) of S. 265B of the Cr.P.C. It is also contended by the petitioner that the statutory report of mutually satisfactory disposition of the case has not been prepared by the trial court in accordance with the mandatory provisions contained in S. 265D of the Cr.P.C., etc. The petitioner essentially places reliance on the judgments dated 8.10.2015 of this Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C). No. 13803/2014) reported in 2015 (4) KLT 364, Joseph P.J. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (O.P(Crl.) No. 41/2015) reported in 2015 (5) KHC 586 and Bala Dandapani v. State of Kerala (O.P(CrL) No. 253/2014) reported in 2016 (1) KLT 117, wherein it has been held that the provisions contained in Chapter XXIA of the Cr.P.C. are mandatory procedures contemplated thereunder and that in case of plea bargaining, the accused should be examined in camera in the absence of the complainant or de facto complainant and that where the trial court disposes of a matter accepting plea bargaining without examining the accused in camera in the absence of the complainant as mandated in S. 265B(4) of the Cr.P.C., then it will be a grave illegality which would result in quashment of the order/judgment passed by the trial court accepting the plea bargaining, etc.

2. The above O.P. filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was admitted by this Court on 11.1.2016 and this Court had passed interim order dated 11.1.2016 ordering that