IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2007 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 884 of 2007() ------------------------ CC.133/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- C.KAMALAM, SANDHYA NIVAS, SHERLY GARMETS, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM, (NOW RESIDING AT THAIPPALLY HOUSE, PARAKKULAM, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM). BY ADV. SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHAMSUDDIN, KALEEKKAL VEEDU, TOWN LIMIT, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB R2 BY ADV. SHRI. C. RAJENDRAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 884 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2007 O R D E R The petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The appeal and the revision petition preferred by him before the learned Sessions Judge and this Court were dismissed and the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence were upheld. The petitioner now faces the sentence of imprisonment for one year. 2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.90,000/- At the post revision stage, the parties have settled their disputes and the petitioner has come to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to accept the composition and to save the petitioner of the obligation to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment for one year. 3. The second respondent/complainant has entered appearance through Adv. C. Rajendran. Annex.II joint statement filed by the petitioner and the second respondent shows that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. The said joint statement is duly Crl.M.C.No. 884 of 2007 2 counter signed by Adv. Sree Ranganadhan, Kollam, who, it is submitted, was appearing before the court below for the second respondent/ complainant. 4. To be doubly sure, this Court queried and the learned counsel for the second respondent Shri. C. Rajendran confirms that he knows the respondent/complainant and he vouches for the signature of the respondent/complainant in Annex.II. He has also made an endorsement to that effect before me today. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that the parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes and the respondent/complainant has compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. 5. The short question then is whether the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserve to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court had already held in Sabu George v. Home Secretary (2007 (1) KLT 982) that a post revision composition of an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, which falls within the sweep of Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. can be accepted to save the indictee of the trauma of undergoing the deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, where the petitioner Crl.M.C.No. 884 of 2007 3 has admittedly made amends for her indiscreet contumacious conduct and the complainant has willingly and voluntarily settled the disputes and compounded the offence committed by the petitioner, I am satisfied that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserve to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. 7. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed. It is directed that the substantive sentence of imprisonment for one year imposed on the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as per the judgment in C.C.133 of 1995 passed by the learned J.F.C.M.-II, Kollam and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dt.6.8.1998 in Crl.A.14 of 1998 and further confirmed by this Court in Crl.R.P.No.849 of 1998 dt.18.12.2006 need not be executed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm