Recently, the Kerala High Court drew a firm line on the limits of its inherent jurisdiction, holding that once a criminal revision has been finally decided, the Court cannot reopen a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour merely because the parties later arrive at a settlement. Declining to intervene at the post-revision stage, the Court made it clear that procedural finality cannot be unsettled by invoking inherent powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The case arose from a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A private company and its Managing Director were convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class–I, in a cheque dishonour case. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Court in appeal and later confirmed by the Kerala High Court in revision.
According to the petitioners, they became aware of the dismissal of the criminal revision only after the Managing Director was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Soon thereafter, the dispute was settled with the complainant, who executed an affidavit stating that he had no objection to the conviction and sentence being set aside.
Armed with the settlement, the petitioners approached the High Court again, invoking its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to quash the conviction and sentence at the post-revision stage.
The petitioners relied on a Supreme Court decision in Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh and Another and a recent Kerala High Court ruling in Mubasheer v. State of Kerala (2025) to argue that the existence of a settlement justified setting aside the conviction even after the conclusion of revision proceedings.
They contended that there was no statutory bar on the High Court exercising inherent powers to grant relief in such circumstances, particularly when the complainant had no surviving grievance.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that once a criminal revision is finally disposed of, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot reopen the conviction under the guise of inherent powers.
Justice C.S. Dias examined the competing precedents and traced the consistent position taken by Division Benches of the High Court on the issue. The Court noted that earlier rulings had conclusively held that post-revision interference with a conviction is impermissible, even where the parties have settled.
The Court observed that it had been decided without reference to binding Division Bench decisions. The reliance placed on Gian Chand Garg was also rejected on the ground that it did not deal with the situation where a revision petition had already been finally disposed of. The Court held that “In light of the authoritative pronouncements settling the legal question, there is no doubt that, once this Court finally decides a criminal revision petition, the inherent powers cannot be invoked to set aside the conviction and sentence.”
Holding that the petition was not maintainable, the Court dismissed the plea seeking to quash the conviction and sentence at the post-revision stage. At the same time, it clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioners from pursuing any other remedies available under the law.
Case Title: FIFA Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case No.: Crl.MC No. 11063 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Dias
Advocate for the Petitioner: S. Rajeev; V. Vinay; M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S.Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, T.P.Aravind, Maheswar P., Akshara S.
Advocate for the Respondent: Asha Babu, Senior Public Prosecutor Seetha S
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
