Omana vs State of Kerala and C. Abu

V.K. Mohanan, J.

Crl. M.A. No. 8625 of 2010

This is a petition filed u/s 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to compound the offence. The dispute is the subject matter of the Crl.R.P. The offence is u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. In the petition, it is stated that the matter has been settled out of court and the revision petitioner has paid the cheque amount to the respondent/complainant and the entire matter was settled between the parties and the respondent/complainant is not having any further grievance against the revision petitioner.

The revision petitioner was permitted to file the compounding petition on producing the receipt showing the remittance of Rs. 2,250/- in the KELSA, in the light of the discretion granted to this Court by the Apex court in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. JT 2010(4) SC 457. The revision petitioner has already paid the above amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, and the receipt vide No. 110 dated 14.9.2010 is produced. As I am satisfied with the terms and the averments contained in the compounding petition, which is signed by the revision petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent and countersigned by their respective counsel, permission is granted to compound the above offence and the composition is recorded.

Crl. R.P. No. 2721 of 2010

The revision petitioner is the accused in a prosecution for the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court found that the accused is guilty and accordingly she is convicted and sentenced for the said offence.

Today by a separate order in Crl.M.A. No. 8625/10, this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence and accordingly, the composition of the said offence is recorded. The revision petitioner has also complied with the condition of paying cost, as fixed by this Court, on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. JT 2010 (4) SC 457. In the light of the composition of the offence between the contesting parties, I am of the view that this Crl.R.P can be allowed, acquitting the accused in terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C.

The learned Counsel submitted that the revision petitioner, who is already arrested, is undergoing imprisonment in Kozhikode District Jail and she may be released from jail.

In the light of the order passed in the above revision petition, setting aside the judgment dated 13.10.2004 in S.T. No. 2563/00 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad and the judgment dated 11.12.2006 in Crl.A. No. 555/2004 of the court of Sessions Judge, Palakkad Division and acquitting the revision petitioner, she is entitled to get released from jail, if she is not required in any other case. Accordingly, the Superintendent of the District Jail, Kozhikode is directed to release the revision petitioner from Jail forthwith, if she is not required in any other case.

The Registry is directed to forward the gist of this order to the jail authorities viz; District Jail, Kozhikode forthwith.