[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Fifa Builders Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
1
"C.R"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1322 OF 1998 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 FIFA BUILDERS PVT LTD
PB NO 801 XIII/1035D 1ST FLOOR KARUALIPADY KOCHI -
REPS BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 682005
2 C.A. NASSAR
AGED 62 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FIFA BUILDERS PVT LTD S/O C.A.
ABOO 6C MASION, MATHER APARTMENT PANAMPILLY NAGAR
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-, PIN - 682036
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
SMT.DIPA V.
SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS
SHRI.AZAD SUNIL
SHRI.T.P.ARAVIND
SHRI.MAHESWAR P.
SMT.AKSHARA S.
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA - 682031.
2 M/S.RDS PROJECT LTD
SUMIT GOYAL, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE MADAN LAL
GOYAL, RESIDING AT PH2, RDS RHYTHM, PADAMUGAL ,
KAKKANAD P.O.EMAKUAM -, PIN - 682021
BY ADV SMT.ASHA BABU
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
3
"C.R"
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.MC No. 11063 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2025
ORDER
The question that arises for consideration is whether a
conviction and sentence can be quashed at the post-
revisional stage.
2. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced for
committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'N.I. Act') by
the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I,
Ernakulam in C.C.No.1322/1998. The said conviction and
sentence stand concurrently confirmed by the Additional
Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in Crl. Appeal No.463/2003
and this Court in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.488/2005.
3. The petitioners are back before this Court, invoking
the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to quash the
conviction and sentence on the grounds that they were
unaware of the dismissal of the revision petition and the
dispute that led to the filing of the complaint has been
amicably settled between the parties. According to the
petitioners, it was only when the 2nd petitioner was
arrested and remanded to judicial custody that they learnt
that the revision petition was dismissed. Immediately, the
2nd petitioner settled the dispute with the 2nd respondent,
who has executed an affidavit stating that he has no
objection to the conviction and sentence being set aside.
Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in
Mubasheer v. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KLT 438], the
petitioners contend that, this Court has quashed the
conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act
even after the post-revisional stage. Therefore, the
Crl.M.C. may be allowed.
4. I have heard Sri. M.S. Aneer, the learned counsel for
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
the petitioners and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior
Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by drawing
sustenance from the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh and Another [2025
LiveLaw (SC) 865] and Mubasheer's case (supra), contend
that there is no statutory fetter to exercise the inherent
powers of this Court to set aside the conviction and
sentence passed against the petitioners, even at the post-
revisional stage, in view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties.
6. In an identical situation, a single Judge of this Court
in Sabu George v. Home Secretary [2007 (1) KLT 982],
had taken the view that there was no legal prohibition for
this Court to exercise its inherent powers to set aside the
conviction and sentence even after the post-conviction
stage.
7. However, doubting the correctness of the above
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
judgment, the matter was referred to the Division Bench;
and in Sudheer Kumar @ Sudheer v. Manakkandi M.K.
Kunhiraman and another [2008 (1) KHC 127], it was
held as follows:
"15. Once High Court confirms the conviction in revision, it cannot
be interfered with by the High Court in view of the subsequent
compounding out of Court. There is no provision under S.320 or any
in the NI Act enabling the Court to accept or permit the
compounding after conviction has become final and no appeal or
revision is pending against the conviction. In P. Damodaran and
Others v. State, 1992 KHC 319 this Court held as follows:
"3. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether
compounding of offences could be done when conviction and
sentence against the accused have become final. Admittedly the
conviction and sentence entered against the accused have become
final in view of the dismissal of Crl R 694 of 1991. As the conviction
and sentence entered against the accused have become final, this
Court cannot have any jurisdiction to compound the offences even if
both parties to the dispute agree for such a course of action."
"5. Compounding of offences can be done when the case is pending
before the Trial Court or the Appellate Court or the revisional
Court. S.320(5) provides that when an accused has been convicted
and an appeal is pending no composition of the offence shall be
allowed without the leave of the Court before which the appeal is to
be heard. S.320(6) enables compounding of offences even during
the revisional stage."
Finally it was held as follows:
"Though compounding of offences can be done during the pendency
of the revision before the High Court, it cannot be done at any time
after the revision petition has been disposed of. S.320(6) states that
the High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its
powers of revision under S.401 may allow any person to compound
any offence. This would clearly indicate that after disposal of the
Criminal Revision Petition the Court becomes function officio (sic
functus officio) to allow the request of the parties for compounding
of the offences."
16. S.362 of CrPC prohibits the Court after it has signed its
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
judgment and final order is passed from altering or reviewing the
same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. In Tanveer
Aquil v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, 1990 Supp SCC 63
considered the issue. In that case, in appeal, Court confirmed the
conviction. After judgment was pronounced, parties compromised
the matter and filed a petition to compound the matter. It was
dismissed as High Court cannot entertain such a petition in view of
the bar under S.362. Apex Court confirmed the same as once
judgment is pronounced, High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
an application for grant of permission to compound the offence. In
such case proper case is to file appeal or SLP as the case may be
and get necessary relief from the Supreme Court..........."
8. In Sreedharan v. Bharathan [2014 KHC 2522],
another Division Bench of this Court, while considering the
question whether this Court would be justified in enlarging
the time already fixed for payment of fine while disposing
of a Criminal Revision Petition, by exercising its inherent
powers under S.482 of the Cr.P.C., has observed thus:
"15. We have also no doubt in our mind that post-revisional
composition is not permissible even by invoking S. 482 CrPC, for that
will have the effect of setting aside the conviction and sentence
passed by the Court, confirmed or modified in revision and would
invite the interdiction contained in S. 362 CrPC".
9. The same view was followed by this Court in Beena
v. Balakrishnan Nair and Another [2010 (2) KHC 851],
placing reliance on the decision in Sudheer Kumar @
Sudheer's case (supra), holding that once this Court has
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
disposed a revision petition, composition between the
accused and the complainant under Section 147 of the NI
Act cannot be permitted under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
10. However, in Mubasheer's case (supra), this Court
has held that the inherent powers of this Court can be
invoked to quash all further proceedings in an offence
under Section 138 of the NI Act, even at the post-revisional
stage. The decision has been rendered without advertence
to the principles laid down in the earlier decisions of this
Court on the point; therefore, according to me, it has been
rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case.
11. The decision in Gian Chand Garg's case (supra),
relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
permits composition of the offence in a disposed criminal
revision petition. Hence, the said decision does not help
the petitioners.
In light of the authoritative pronouncements settling
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
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. Consequently, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed as not
maintainable, but without prejudice to the rights of the
petitioners to pursue their remedies as are permissible
under the law.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB/dkr
2025:KER:94531
CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 11063 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE I ERNAKULAM
Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN CRL APPEAL NO 1795/2006
