Allowed

Ramla N.V. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/528/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but reduced the sentence to a fixed fine of Rs.25,000. The court rescinded coercive steps, treating the payment as fine and compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. following a successful mediation settlement.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to fine of Rs.25,000 (already paid); coercive steps including non-bailable warrant cancelled; necessary entries made in trial register.

Ramla N.V. Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/19TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 528 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRA.NO. 205/2016 of 1ST ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶7

ST.NO.1158/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE .

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

RAMLA N.V., W/O. SULAIMAN, AGED 42 YEARS, NADUVILANGUMMAL HOUSE, PANDIRIKKARA,AVADUKKA P.O, PERUVANNAMUZHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.V.S.THOSHIN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

¶13

2. HAFSA BEEVI,

¶14

W/O. RASAQUE, KIZHAKKE THODUKAYIL HOUSE, PARAKKODE, VALIYA PARAMBU, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (COMPLAINANT)

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JESTIN MATHEW R2 BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR SRI.JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.528 of 2017

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2017

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioner is accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.1158 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent herein.

¶24

The trial court, as per the impugned judgment rendered on 27.6.2011, had convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence and had sentenced her to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default of payment thereof, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.205 of 2016 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The appellate

¶25

court concerned (Court of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode), as per the impugned judgment rendered on 30.12.2016, had dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence

¶26

: :2::

¶27

Crl.R.P.528/17

¶28

imposed by the trial court. It is challenging these concurrent verdicts of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition by taking recourse to the remedies conferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.

¶29

Heard Sri.Sasthamangalam S.Ajithkumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for R2/complainant, and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned prosecutor appearing for R1/State.

¶30

At the request of both sides, the parties were referred to the District Mediation Centre, Kozhikode, for resolving the disputes in relation to the dishonoured cheque involved in this case which arises out of the complaint in S.T.No.1158 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. Now the District Judge concerned who is the District Co-ordinator of the District Mediation Centre, Kozhikode, has furnished a report dated 17.10.2017 addressed to the Registry of this Court, wherein it has been inter-alia stated that the disputes between the rival parties in relation to the present revision petition (Crl.R.P.No.528 of 2017) arising out of the abovesaid S.T.No.1158 of 2010 have been fully resolved and that as per the said mediation agreement, the revision petitioner/accused has paid Rs.25,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of the dispute

¶31

: :3::

¶32

Crl.R.P.528/17

¶33

in S.T.No.1158 of 2010 and that the complainant has accepted the said amount. The terms and conditions of the said mediation agreement dated 17.10.2017 in S.T.No.1158 of 2010 reads as follows :

¶34

“KOZHIKODE MEDIATION CENTRE

¶35

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 CPC OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH RULE 24 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION) RULES 2008

¶36

1. The aforesaid petition was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. In the course of mediation, they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions:

¶37

i. As per the terms of Agreement the Revision Petitioner has paid Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only) to the Complainant in full and final settlement of the dispute in ST No.1158/2010 and complainant accepted the amount.

¶38

ii. The Complainant has consented to sign the Compounding Petition prepared by the Revision Petitioner in the above matter.

¶39

iii. The Complainant has no further grievance, complaints or claims against the Revision Petitioner in ST No.1158/2010.

¶40

iv. The Complainant has also agreed to take back the original Cheque leaf and other documents filed before the lower Court in ST 1158/10 and will hand over the same to the accused.

¶41

2. In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that the above petition be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid agreement.

¶42

3. The parties or their counsel will appear on 09.11.2017 before the Hon'ble Court for passing the orders in terms of the above said agreement.”

¶43

: :4::

¶44

Crl.R.P.528/17

¶45

Both sides submit that the matter may be disposed of taking note of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Further Sri.Sasthamangalam S.Ajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, would submit on the basis of instructions from his party that the petitioner is not challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned conviction imposed in this case and this Court may set aside the substantive sentence and may appropriately dispose of the revision petition taking note of the compensation already paid by the accused which has been received by the complainant.

¶46

Accordingly, the following directions and orders are

¶47

passed :

¶48

(i) The impugned conviction imposed on the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.1158 of 2010 will stand confirmed.

¶49

(ii) In supersession of the orders passed by the courts below, it is ordered that the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of only Rs.25,000/-. Since the said amount has already been paid directly by the accused to the complainant, there is no necessity to incorporate any default sentence clause. The said direct payment should be treated as if the said amount has been paid as fine and then disbursed as compensation to the complainant in terms of Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

¶50

(iii) In view of the abovesaid payment, it is ordered that no further action is required on the part of the trial court for execution of the impugned sentence of fine in this case except that the trial

¶51

Crl.R.P.528/17

¶52

: :5::

¶53

court shall make necessary entries in the final register about payment of the abovesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- in the manner indicated herein above.

¶54

(iv) Any coercive steps including non bailable warrant issued against the petitioner in relation to the execution of the sentence in S.T.No.1158 of 2010 will stand rescinded and cancelled.

¶55

The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the trial court for necessary information.

¶56

The matter was referred for mediation to the District Mediation Centre, Kozhikode, not only in respect of the present case in S.T.No.1158 of 2010 (which led to the present Crl.R.P.No.528 of 2017), but also in relation to the connected complaint in S.T.No.1157 of 2010, (which led to the suo motu Criminal Revision Petition No.971 of 2017 disposed of by this Court on 25.8.2017). The Mediation Centre has made available the separate mediation agreements not only in relation to the present S.T.No.1158 of 2010, but also in relation to the aforesaid connected S.T.No.1157 of 2010. This Court as per the order dated 25.8.2017 in the abovesaid suo motu Crl.R.P.No.971 of 2017 had given liberty to the petitioner/accused to file Criminal Appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence imposed in S.T.No.1157 of 2010 and liberty was also given to the parties to place reliance on the mediation process referred to herein above. Accordingly, it is ordered that the

¶57

Crl.R.P.528/17

¶58

: :6::

¶59

Registry will forward attested copy of the mediation agreement in S.T.No.1157 of 2010 along with the covering letter dated 17.10.2017 of the District Co-ordinator (District Judge) as well as the letter dated 17.10.2017 of Smt.P.K.Sobhana, mediator, Kozhikode, to the Principal Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, and the trial court concerned for appropriate action, if so necessary in relation to the Criminal Appeal that may be filed by the accused in relation to S.T.No.1157 of 2010.

¶60

With these observations and directions, the Criminal Revision Petition will stand finally disposed of.

¶61

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

csl

Crl.R.P.528/17

: :7::

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶66

---------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.528 of 2017

¶67

----------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2017

¶68

O R D E R

¶69

Sri.Sasthamangalam S.Ajithkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused in this case, would submit that his party is willing for a comprehensive settlement in relation to S.T.No.1158 of 2010 involved in this case as well as in S.T.No.1157 of 2010 which is

¶70

the subject matter of suo motu revision ordered by this Court today. Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant, would submit that the complainant would consider the mediation offer only if the accused is bonafide interested to settle the matter and if it is not made only for the purpose of further delaying the proceedings and that the complainant should deposit at least one half of the compensation amount involved in this cases before the trial court to show his bonafides. The above submissions of both the parties are recorded.

¶71

In view of this submission, it is ordered that the revision petitioner/accused and the second respondent/complainant shall personally appear before this Court at 10:15 A.M. on 8.8.2017 in order

¶72

: :8::

¶73

Crl.R.P.528/17

¶74

to ascertain the willingness of the parties for being referred for mediation. The learned Advocates appearing on both sides should intimate the respective parties about this direction and Registry need not sent any separate notice to the parties concerned.

¶75

List on 8.8.2017 for appearance of the parties.

¶76

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶77

csl

Ramla N.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramla N.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Thomman Valappil Vs P.C.Thomas

Annamma Sunny Vs Vasanthakumari Amma and Another

Oommen Geevarghese Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Mathew Vs George A.J.

Chacko K.J Vs Vinod K.J

Jose Thomas Vs Sunny Joseph