IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1009 of 2000() ----------------------------------------- CRA.230/1996 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.2356/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II , KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT --------------------------- MATHEW ALEX, VADAKKEMADATHIL HOUSE, PEROOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.BABY THOMAS RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT-ACCUSED & NOT PARTY. ---------------------- 1. BABY PAUL, PERUMPALLIL PUTHENVEEDU, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.ARUN VALENCHERY FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 2557 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.RP. NO.1009/2000 ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.5444/2000 IN CRL.RP. NO.1009/2000 DISMISSED 11.04.2008 SD/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.RP.No. 1009/2000 & 2557/2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008. ORDER These revision petitions arise from two proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by the common complainant against the common accused in the two cases. While the former revision petition, which is at the instance of the complainant, is directed against the order of remand passed by the appellate court, the latter is at the instance of the accused in the other proceedings in which he had been concurrently found guilty by the trial court as well as the appellate court. In view of the intervening development, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the two cases or to their chequered history. 2. When these two cases came up for consideration on the last hearing date, it was suggested by the court that the complainant and accused being very close friends once upon a time, it would be appropriate if an attempt was made to bury the hatchet. 3. Sri.Mathew John and Sri.T.G.Rajendran learned counsel for the parties as well as the complainant and the accused who appeared before the court, have shown admirable equanimity and sense of fairness in agreeing to settle the matter once and for all. Though the total amount covered under the two cheques comes to only Rs.75,000/-(Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/-) the suggestion made by the court to the accused to pay a total sum of Rs. One lakh was very gracefully accepted by him. Crl.RPs.1009/2000,2557/05. 2 4. Today when the cases were taken up again for further consideration, Sri. Baby Paul, the accused has handed over a sum of Rs. One Lakh to Sri.Mathew John, learned counsel for the complainant who accepted it for and on behalf of his client. Sri.Mathew John submits that his client has instructed him to report before this Court that the receipt of this amount is by way of full and final settlement of the entire dues payable under the two cheques in question. The above submission is recorded. 5. Two applications for composition of the offence have also been field. Though the complainant has not been able to be present in court because of indisposition, Sri.Mathew John has signed in the two applications. The accused and his counsel have also signed in these two applications. In the peculiar facts and circumstances I am inclined to allow them. 6. Accordingly the accused is acquitted in the two cases. viz., S.T.No.2356/94 and 2355/94 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, No.II, Kottayam. 7. Registry shall number the two applications for composition, which shall stand allowed as indicated above. Revision Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.