The question before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the Criminal Revision Petition # 2024/2012 in the matter of G.Sasidharan Versus Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance was 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?.
Facts of the Case
The 1st 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.
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.
Appeal to High Court
Aggrieved by the appellate court judgment, accused preferred this criminal revision petition.
When the matter was taken up for consideration the counsel for the 1st 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 also filed a statement to that effect on 18.03.2025 .
Now the question before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court 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?.
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court considering the submissions of the petitioner and respondents’ statement and also taking into account the following case laws
Mathew v. State of Kerala [1986 KHC 38],
Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Goel [2022(11) SCC 705]
Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana [2024(3) KHC 485] came to the following findings.
Findings of the Kerala High Court
“ 13.When the parties to the lis in a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act had arrived at a compromise, the usual and normal method is to file a compounding petition, either under Section 320 of the Code or under Section 147 of the NI Act, or both. In the instant case, the accused/revision petitioner is completely bedridden and unable to sign the compounding petition. This is a criminal revision petition of the year 2012. In other words, revision petition is pending here for the past 13 years. The insistence of the presence of the accused/compounding petition signed by the parties would, no doubt, prolong and protract the litigation for an indefinite period.
14.Therefore, I am of the view that, the aforesaid statement filed by the counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant would be accepted, without insisting on a compounding petition or the presence of the petitioner/accused and the conviction and sentence in this matter can be set aside. On the basis of the ratio decidendi culled out from the various judgments referred above, I am of the considered opinion that, once the counsel for the complainant files a statement stating that the complainant has received the amount, nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this matter. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the parties can be allowed to compound the matter.”
Decision
The conviction and sentence imposed in this matter were set aside, in the interest of justice.