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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G.Girish, J
Antony – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 484 OF 2026 | Crl.A NO.628 OF 2003 | CC NO.910 OF 2001



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jomy K. Jose
For the Respondents: Salman Faris, M.C Ashi, Sr.Public Prosecutor

Offence under Section 138 NI Act compoundable post-conviction upon amicable settlement between parties.

Headnote:Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act governs the offence of dishonour of cheques. The accused was convicted by the trial court in CC No.910/2001 and the appellate court in Crl.A No.628/2003 for issuing a cheque that was dishonoured. Following the death of the complainant, legal heirs were impleaded. The key issue was whether the offence could be compounded post-conviction. Parties submitted amicable settlement, filing Crl.M.A No.3 of 2026 to compound the private offence, with payment settled to legal heirs. The revision petition is allowed; concurrent convictions and sentences set aside, offence compounded, petitioner acquitted.

Table of Content
1. challenges concurrent convictions under section 138 ni act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. amicable settlement submitted by parties. (Para 3 , 4)
3. offence compounded, conviction set aside, acquittal granted. (Para 5)

ORDER

The concurrent verdicts of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, and the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur, in CC No.910/2001 and Crl.Appeal No.628/2003 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. Since the complainant passed away, the additional respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded as his legal representatives.

3. Now that it has been submitted by the counsel representing the revision petitioner as well as the counsel representing additional respondents 3 to 5 that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and hence the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below are to be set aside.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the additional respondents 3 to 5 and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The revision petitioner and the additional respondents 3 to 5 have jointly filed Crl.M.A No.3 of 2026 with a prayer to compound the offence, since the issue has been amicably settled between them. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the issue involved is purely private in nature. It appears that the amount which stood due to the deceased complainant has been settled by the revision petitioner with the legal representatives of the complainant. In the above circumstances, the request of the parties to compound the offence, deserves to be allowed.

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of as follows:

i) The offence involved in this case is declared to have been lawfully compounded by the parties.

ii) The concurrent verdicts of the courts below, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are hereby set aside.

iii) The petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act found against him by the courts below.

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