SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10437

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MARY JOSEPH, J
SHAJIL V.C.
– Appellant
Versus

STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 361 2021



Advocates:
P.JAYABAL MENON, REKHA AGARWAL, P.K.SAJEEV, SMT. C. SEENA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Offences under Section 138 of the NI Act can be compounded upon amicable settlement between parties, leading to acquittal.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments - C.C.No.23 of 2016 - Section 138 NI Act - The court allowed compounding of the offence under the NI Act as the parties amicably resolved the issues and the legal heirs of the deceased respondent withdrew the prosecution.

Fact of the Case:

The revision petition challenges prior judgments where the petitioner was found guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. Following the death of a respondent, the issues were settled between the petitioner and the legal heirs.

Finding of the Court:

The court confirmed that the matter was amicably settled, and the legal heirs of the deceased respondent agreed not to pursue the prosecution, thus allowing the compounding of the offence.

Issues: Whether the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be compounded after an amicable settlement between parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 147 of the NI Act, offences under Section 138 can be compounded if the parties reach an amicable settlement.

Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed, and the petitioner is acquitted.

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed challenging judgments respectively of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Kozhikode in C.C.No.23 of 2016 and Additional Court of Sessions-V, Kozhikode in Crl. Appeal No.73 of 2018. By virtue of the judgments, the revision petitioner was found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act") and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,00,000/- within one month and to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that following the death of the 2nd respondent, the issues involved in C.C.No.23 of 2016 have been amicably settled among the revision petitioner and the legal heirs of deceased 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the legal heirs of the 2nd respondent were impleaded in the revision petition by order passed in Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2022 as additional respondents 3 to 5. Notice was served on them through special messenger and they entered appearance through Adv. P.K. Sajeev.

3. Crl.M.A.No.3 of 2022 is also filed jointly by the revision petitioner and the additional respondents under Section 147 NI Act. In the application, it is stated by the additional respondents that the issues have been amicably resolved by receiving the amount due under the cheque. Pursuant to the settlement, they have also received the agreed amount as compensation from the revision petitioner. It is stated in the joint application that the additional respondents do not intend to proceed against the revision petitioner in the prosecution on hand.

4. In the above circumstances, Crl.M.A. No.3 of

2022 is allowed. The offences stands proved under Section 138 of the NI Act is permitted to be compounded. In view of the compounding, the revision petitioner is acquitted.

Crl.R.P. is allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top