AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. S. Dias, J.
The revision petition is filed challenging the correctness and propriety of the judgment passed by the Court of the Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode (Appellate Court) in Crl.A. No.895/2008 confirming the judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perambra in C.C No.157/2007 (Trial Court), convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’). The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
The prosecution case in brief
The prosecution case was that the first accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-from the complainant and in discharge of the said debt, he had issued Ext P1 cheque assuring that the cheque would be honoured on presentation. However, the cheque was dishonoured with the reason ‘drawer differs’. On enquiry, the complainant learnt that the cheque belonged to the second accused. Even though the complainant issued Exts P3 and P6 lawyer notices to the accused, they did not pay the demanded amount. Hence, the accused with dishonest intention to deceive the complainant had issued Ext P1 cheque and have committed the offence under Sec.420 read with Sec.34 of the IPC.
Trial Court Judgment
The Trial Court after appreciating the materials on record, convicted the first accused for an offence under Sec.420 of the IPC and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- . The second accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the first accused preferred Crl.A No.895/2008 before the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court Judgment
The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused by the Trial Court.
It is questioning the concurrent judgments of the courts below that the first accused has filed the revision petition.
Heard; Sri.P.Santharam, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Sri.J.R Prem Navaz, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Smt. Pushpalatha M.K. the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the second respondent-State.
Today, when the revision petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison submitted that the subject matter in dispute between them has been settled and the first accused has filed Crl.M.Appl No.1/2023 stating that the offence committed by the revision petitioner/first accused may be compounded in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the revision petitioner and the first respondent have entered into a genuine settlement and the State has no objection in the revision petition being allowed in terms of Crl.M.Appl No.1/2023.
This Court in Soban v. State of Kerala [2021 (3) KLT Online 1179], after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joshi v. State of Haryana [2008 (2) KLT 1062]; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]; Bitan Singh Gupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [2018 (1) KLT Online 3156 (SC)] and decisions of this Court in Renjith v. State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 5N41 (C. No.56] has held that if the requirements of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are satisfied, in the sense that it is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can be quashed, notwithstanding the fact that the order of conviction has been passed against the accused provided the offence does not fall within the category of offences prohibited to be quashed as per the guidelines laid down in Gian Singh (Supra) and the other decisions on the point.
I am in total agreement with the principles laid down in Soban (Supra).
Having considered the facts, on reading the affidavit of the second respondent and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited precedents, I am inclined to invoke the plenary powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below by the impugned judgments, which will augur the relationship and harmony between the parties and meet the ends of justice.
In the result,
(i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Appellate Court in Crl. A No.895/2008 and confirmed by the Trial Court in C.C. No.157/2007, as against the revision petitioner/first accused are set aside.
(ii) The bail bonds executed by the revision petitioner/first accused and the sureties are hereby cancelled.
(iii) The fine amount that was remitted by the revision petitioner/first accused, pursuant to the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by this Court, shall be refunded to the revision petitioner, in accordance with law.