Ramani M vs Vinod Kumar P
2021 Latest Caselaw 2638 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

   FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.696 OF 2017

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 71/2015 OF SESSIONS
                      COURT, KALPETTA

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 1329/2014 OF JUDICIAL
          MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KALPETTA


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

              RAMANI M.,
              AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.RAJENDRAN,
              SENIOR TELECOM OFFICER, BSNL,
              MARKET ROAD, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANADU DISTRICT.

              BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE

RESPONDENT/S:

      1       VINOD KUMAR P.,
              AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR,
              INDEEVARAM HOUSE, CHUZHALI, PUTHOORVAYAL P.O.,
              KOTTAPADI, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANADU, PIN-673121.

      2       STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

              R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 696 of 2017
                              -2-



                          ORDER

Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2021 has been filed

jointly by the revision petitioner and the

first respondent herein, who is the

complainant before the trial court, praying

for granting permission to compound the

offence and recording the composition. The

parties have filed this application on the

reason that the matter has been settled by

the parties. This Court as per order dated

21.01.2021 in Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2021 directed

the revision petitioner to pay costs of

Rs.5,000/- to the Kerala State Legal

Services Authority as a condition precedent

to grant permission to compound the offence Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 696 of 2017

as held by the Apex Court in Damodar S.

Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal [2010 (2)KLT 587

(SC)]. The revision petitioner has

deposited the amount and produced the

receipt. The offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act is

compoundable under Section 147 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore,

since the matter has been settled, it is

only just and proper to grant permission

to compound the offence. Accordingly,

permission stands granted and the

composition stands recorded, which is having

the effect of acquittal under Section 320

(8) of Cr.P.C.

Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 696 of 2017

In the result, this Revision Petition

stands allowed, setting aside the

conviction and sentence passed by the courts

below under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and

the revision petitioner stands acquitted

under Section 320 (8) of Cr.P.C. The bail

bond of the revision petitioner stands

discharged.

sd/-

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE STK