Cheque Dishonor | Accused Can't Challenge Conviction After Pleading Guilty To Avoid Compensation: Kerala High Court

The petitioner before Justice C.S. Dias had pleaded guilty before the Magistrate, which sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant.

The petitioner underwent the imprisonment but failed to pay the compensation amount. The complainant filed an application to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and a distraint warrant was issued. Following all this, the petitioner approached the High Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

He alleged that the particulars of the offences were not properly read over and that he did not understand the consequence of pleading guilty. He also told that he had appeared before the Magistrate without his counsel. The petitioner further contended that the Magistrate passed the judgment and conviction without following the procedure under Section 252, 264 and 275 BNSS.

The complainant countered the petitioner's submission and submitted that he had appeared before the Magistrate along with a counsel and the particulars were read over and explained to him. It was also told that he voluntarily expressed desire to plead guilty if a lenient sentence was imposed and time was granted to pay the compensation.

It was also pointed out that the petitioner, being a doctor and motivational speaker, was fully aware of the consequences of his pleading guilty. Further, the Magistrate recorded the plea of guilty in conformity with the law for trial of summons cases, the complainant argued.

The Court called for a report from the Magistrate, which communicated that the procedure for trial of summons cases was followed since the petitioner pleaded guilty. 9 months' time was allowed to pay the amount as requested by the petitioner and his plea was recorded, the report said.

The Court considered the question whether the trial court's judgment passed upon the petitioner's plea of guilty suffers from illegality, impropriety or irrationality warranting interference invoking jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

It noted that as per Section 143(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint alleging offence under Section 138 is to tried summarily as per the procedure under Section 262 to 265 CrPC. Moreover, Section 262 states that summary trial would have the procedure as provided under Chapter XX, same as that for summons trial.

Referring to Section 251 under Chapter XX, the Court remarked:

“The above provision mandates that when an accused is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence for which the person is accused shall be stated to him, he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, and it is not necessary to frame a charge.”

Looking at the Magistrate's report, the petitioner's deposition and the fact that he underwent the substantive sentence of imprisonment, the Court refused to believe that the petitioner was unaware of the consequences of his pleading guilty.

The Court further remarked that there is no illegality or irrationality in the impugned judgment to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. It added:

“the petitioner underwent the substantive sentence till the rising of the court on the same day, without any demur or protest. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner remained silent from 16.12.2024 till 19.11.2025, the date of filing of this Crl.M.C., until the distraint warrant was issued against him, to quash…judgment on the ground that the particulars of the offence were not properly read over to him and that he did not understand the consequence of pleading guilty. The said contention can only be accepted with a pinch of salt. The petitioner, who is a doctor and a Guinness World Record Winner, cannot be labelled as an ignorant person who was unaware of his act of pleading guilty… The petitioner's sole intention is to avoid paying compensation to the 1st respondent, and nothing more and nothing less.”

Thus, it dismissed the plea.

Case No: Crl.MC. No. 10511 of 2025

Case Title: Yahya Khan N. v. Sainaba T.P. and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 222

Counsel for the petitioner: E.C. Ahamed Fazil

Counsel for the respondents: Seetha S. - Sr.Public Prosecutor, T. Madhu, R.V. Sreejith, C.R. Saradamani, Renjish S. Menon, Avanthika R., Karthik Krishna M., Arunima A.R., T.S. Davis

Click to Read/Download Order