IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1731 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.60/2009 of THE COURT OF SESSIONS, MANJERI (ADHOC-II) ST.1687/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- -------------------------------------------------------------------- MURALIKUMAR, S/O. LATE CHAMIKUTTY, MADAVATH HOUSE, KOLAPARAMBA P.O., EAST PANDIKKAD. BY ADV. MR.SUNIL KUMAR A.G MR.R.SUDHEESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.ABDUL JALEEL, S/O. MOIDUTTYMAN HAJI, KUNDOTTUPARAKKAL HOUSE, KARIAVATTOM AMSOM DESOM, MANNARMALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.VINOD KUMAR.C R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1731 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June 2010 O R D E R Crl.M.A.No.5533 of 2010 This is a petition filed under Sec.147 of the N.I.Act with a prayer, seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence. 2. The revision petitioner/accused in S.T.No.1687/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna and the appellant in Crl.A.No.60/2009 on the file of the Court of Sessions (Adhoc-II), Manjeri, by which, the revision petitioner is stand convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, against which, he preferred the present revision petition. 3. In the present petition, it is stated that after the Crl.R.P.No.1731 of 2010 : 2 : dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate court, dispute was settled out of court between the parties and the revision petitioner has paid the cheque amount to the 2nd respondent/complainant and accordingly the 2nd respondent/complainant has no objection in compounding the offence and acquitting the revision petitioner. It is also stated by producing a receipt No.055 dated 9.6.2010 issued from the Kerala State Legal Services Authority for an amount of Rs.13,500/- that they have remitted the said amount as directed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babulal. H represented in J.T.2010(4) SC page 457. 4. I have gone through the compounding petition and I am satisfied with the terms and averments contained therein. The revision petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent/complainant has signed the petition and the same was countersigned by the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also countersigned by the Crl.R.P.No.1731 of 2010 : 3 : Superintendent, District Prison, Kozhikode. As the parties have settled the matter, I am of the view that this petition to compound the offence can be allowed. In the result, the contesting parties are permitted to compound the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act and accordingly the composition is recorded. Crl.R.P.No.1731 of 2010 The challenge in this revision petition is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, as per the judgment dated 12.2.2009 in S.T.No.1687/2007 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perinthalmanna and the judgment dated 9.3.2010 in Crl.A.No.60/2009 in the court of Sessions (Adhoc-II), Manjeri. 2. Today by separate order in Crl.M.A.No.5533/2010, this Court allowed the revision petition and the 2nd respondent/complainant to compound the above offence and accordingly the composition of the Crl.R.P.No.1731 of 2010 : 4 : offence is recorded. 3. In the light of the composition of the offence between the contesting parties, I am of the view that this revision petition can be allowed, acquitting the accused/revision petitioner by virtue of Sec.320(8) of Cr.P.C. In the result, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgments of the courts below and acquitting the accused of all the charges leveled against him and he is set at liberty. The revision petition is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt