The Kerala High Court has dismissed Crl.M.C. No.10511 of 2025 filed by Yahya Khan N., aged 50 years, a doctor and motivational speaker from Kozhikode, seeking to quash the judgment dated 16.12.2024 in S.T. No.16 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini Island, Lakshadweep, whereby he was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant with a default sentence of three months. Justice C.S. Dias, while pronouncing the order on 16th February, 2026, held that the petitioner’s plea of guilty was recorded after the particulars of the offence were read over and explained to him in strict conformity with the procedure prescribed for summons cases, and there was no illegality, impropriety or irrationality warranting interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The petitioner had appeared before the learned Magistrate during the camp sitting at Kozhikode on 16.12.2024 and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the offence. He requested nine months’ time till August 2025 to pay the compensation, which was granted with the consent of the complainant. The petitioner underwent the substantive sentence on the same day and was enlarged on bail for payment of compensation. However, when he failed to pay the amount, the complainant moved for a non-bailable warrant, leading to issuance of a distraint warrant. Only thereafter, on 19.11.2025, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that his counsel was absent, he did not fully comprehend the legal consequences, and the learned Magistrate failed to follow the procedure under Sections 252, 264 and 275 of the BNSS as well as the principles laid down in Raseen Babu K.M. v. State of Kerala [2021 (3) KHC 394].

The 1st respondent-complainant filed a counter statement asserting that the petitioner had appeared along with counsel, the particulars of the offence were read over and explained to him, and he voluntarily expressed his desire to plead guilty subject to imposition of a lenient substantive sentence and grant of time to pay compensation. Pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the learned Magistrate submitted a report dated 28.11.2025 confirming that the procedure for trial of summons cases was followed, no formal charge was required to be framed, the particulars of the offence were read over and explained, the petitioner voluntarily admitted the offence, his plea was recorded, and the deposition was signed by him. The Magistrate also granted the requested time till 15.08.2025 for payment of compensation.

Justice C.S. Dias observed that “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”. The Court found that “in light of the report of the learned Magistrate and the appended deposition of the petitioner, there is not an iota of doubt that the particulars of the offence were read over to the petitioner, who pleaded guilty, his plea was recorded, and the deposition was signed by the petitioner”. The Bench further noted 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”, and held that “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 Court ultimately concluded that “on a comprehensive evaluation of the facts, the materials on record, particularly after going through the report of the learned Magistrate, I am not convinced that there is any illegality or irrationality in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner, that too, after the petitioner has undergone the substantive sentence”. It added that “the petitioner’s sole intention is to avoid paying compensation to the 1st respondent, and nothing more and nothing less. The Crl.M.C. is meritless and only deserves to be dismissed”.

Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Shri E.C. Ahamed Fazil, while the 1st respondent was represented by Advocates including Smt. Seetha S., Sr. Public Prosecutor, and others.

Case Title: Yahya Khan N. v. Sainaba T.P. and Another
Case No.: Crl.M.C. No.10511 of 2025
Date of Order: 16 February 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Dias

Click HERE for full Judgment