The court can accept a counsel's statement indicating an amicable settlement in lieu of the physical presence of the accused for achieving justice and avoiding procedural delays in criminal proceedings involving cheque dishonour.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 320 and 147 - Criminal prosecution initiated for cheque dishonour - Parties reached an amicable settlement; statement by counsel accepted - Court upheld that filing a compounding petition is not always necessary - Procedure of compounding can proceed without accused present if justice would be served. (Paras 2, 4, 16)

(B) The court emphasized that insistence on physical presence of the accused may not be necessary, especially when the accused is unable to attend court. The court's role is to ensure justice without undue delay in resolution of disputes. (Paras 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The complainant registered a case under Section 138 for dishonour of cheque; after conviction, appeal reduced the sentence. Ultimately, an amicable settlement was reported by the parties involved.

Findings of Court:
The statement by the complainant's counsel indicating settlement can be accepted, leading to vacating the conviction.

Issues: Whether the court can set aside a conviction based solely on parties' amicable settlement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found merit in allowing compounding through a counsel's statement when parties confirm mutual agreement in settled cases, exemplifying a case where the physical appearance of an accused is not pivotal for justice.

Result: Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the conviction.

ORDER

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 complainant and pass appropriate orders setting aside the conviction and sentence?

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused invited the attention of this Court to the dictum laid down in Mathew v. State of Kerala [1986 KHC 38] , wherein the Single Bench of this Court observed that the insistence on the appearance of the parties before Court need be, only if it becomes absolutely necessary f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47833

The court can accept a counsel's statement indicating an amicable settlement in lieu of the physical presence of the accused for achieving justice and avoiding procedural delays in criminal proceedings involving cheque dishonour.

Cases Referred (2)