Proper legal procedures were adhered to in a guilty plea under the Negotiable Instruments Act, upholding the conviction.

ORDER :

C.S. DIAS, J.

1. The petitioner was the accused in S.T.No.16 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini Island, Lakshadweep, filed at the instance of the 1^st respondent, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I Act').

2. The petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash Annexure A2 judgment passed by the learned Magistrate convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the 1^st respondent, with a default sentence of three months.

3. The petitioner has averred in the Crl. M.C. he had appeared in the camp sitting of the above Court at Kozhikode on 16.12.2024, his counsel was absent; that without fully comprehending the legal consequences, he pleaded guilty; and the learned Magistrate, without adhering to the procedure contemplated under Sections 252, 264 and 275 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (' BNSS ', in short) as well as the principles laid down by this Court in the decision in Raseen Babu K.M v. State of Kerala [2021 (3) KHC 394], has convicted and sentenced him. Therefore, the judgment may be quashed, and the conviction and sentence may be set aside.

4. The 1^st respondent has filed a counter-statement, inter alia, denying the assertions in the Crl. M.C. The 1^st respondent has contended that the petitioner had appeared along with a counsel; that the particulars of the offence were read over and explained to him; and that he voluntarily expressed his desire to plead guilty, subject to the imposition of a lenient substantive sentence and grant of one year to pay the compensation. It was after fully understanding the consequences of his action that the petitioner pleaded guilty. It is also stated that the petitioner is a doctor and a motivational speaker, as reflected in Annexure R1(a) social media post. The learned Magistrate had recorded the petitioner's plea strictly in conformity with the law for the trial of summons cases. The Crl.M.C. is not maintainable, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal.

5. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the learned Magistrate, by communication dated 28.11.2025, has reported that the petitioner had appeared before him on 16.12.2024. As the petitioner expressed his desire to plead guilty to the offence, the procedure envisaged for the trial of summons cases was followed. Hence, no formal charge was framed. The particulars of the offence were read over and explained to the petitioner, and he was asked whether he had committed the above offence. The petitioner voluntarily admitted to committing the offence and expressed his desire to settle the matter by pleading guilty. However, he requested nine months, till August 2025, to pay the compensation, which was also consented to by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner’s plea was recorded; a copy of the deposition is attached to the report. Accordingly, the judgment was passed, sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment till the rising of the court and ordering him to pay compensation of Rupees Six Lakh, with a default sentence of three months. The petitioner underwent the substantive sentence, and he was enlarged on bail for the payment of the compensation amount. On 01.09.2025, the 1^st respondent filed an application to issue a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner due to his failure to pay the compensation. Consequently, a distraint warrant was issued a