A court can accept a statement of amicable settlement without requiring a compounding petition when both parties have settled under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

ORDER :

K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.

The short question involved in this case is whether this Court can act upon a statement filed by the complainant that the matter has been settled amicably by the parties, without filing a compounding petition under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?.

2. The 1^st respondent/complainant, Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd., initiated criminal prosecution against the petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’] for an amount due to the company.

3. The trial court vide judgment dated 27.03.2008 in C.C.No.121/2006 convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,72,000/-. Impugning the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.256/2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.II, Palakkad allowed the appeal in part, modified and reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for ten days and maintained the compensation. Aggrieved by the appellate court judgment, accused preferred this criminal revision petition.

4. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 14.03.2025, Adv.N. Sudha, instructed by Adv.K S Babu, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/complainant submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the aforementioned company had received the amount from the revision petitioner. The learned counsel filed a statement dated 18.03.2025 as directed by this Court on 14.03.2025, the contents of which are extracted hereunder:

“The above Criminal revision Petition is filed against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.256/2008 of the Sessions Court, Palakkad arising from the judgment in CC No.121/2006 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad. Both the courts below held that the accused is guilty of the offence. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,72,000/-( Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand only) under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The appellate court reduced the sentence to 10 days imprisonment. The direction to pay compensation has been maintained by the appellate court. It is intimated by the 1st respondent that the parties had amicably settled the above case and the settled amount had been paid by the revision petitioner to the 1st respondent. Therefore this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the same and appropriate order may be passed in the above case.”

5. Adv.P.K.Mohanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the revision petitioner was completely bedridden and he had paid the amount in 2013 itself.

6. It is trite law that, once the criminal revision petition is preferred and admitted, it shall be disposed of on merits, unless the parties arrived at a settlement and filed a compounding petition.

7. If the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement, the usual mode of bringing quietus to the lis is by way of filing a compounding petition signed by both the parties under Sections 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’] or under Section 147 of the NI Act. In the instant case, it could be seen that the matter has been settled between the parties and the counsel for the complainant has filed a statement to that effect as aforesaid.

8. The crucial question before me is whether this Court can act upon the statement of the counsel for the compla