Skip to content


Mohandas Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantMohandas
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
.....have settled the entire issues, the 2nd respondent has filed the petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure also seeking composition of non compoundable offences invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the cr.p.c. the learned counsel for the crl.r.p.no.1980 of20133 revision petitioner cited decision in [gian singh v. state of punjab 2012(4)klt108(sc)] and drew my attention to paragraph 57 of the said decision. in this category of cases, high court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE3D DAY OF JANUARY201413TH POUSHA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1980 of 2013 () -------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

IN CRL.A.NO. 523/2010 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD DATED3005-2013) CC.NO. 249/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR ---------------------------------------------- REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- MOHANDAS,S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED27YEARS, VELLAPPANA, AMBAZHAKKADU, PERUVEMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTUR POLICE STATION. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED *ADDL.R2: SHAHUL HAMEED, A/O. ALAVUDHEEN, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR,PIN-678 101 *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL2D RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER

DATED1511/2013 IN CRL.M.A.NO.8199/13 IN CRL.R.P.NO.1980/13. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0301-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.HARILAL, J.

----------------- CRL.R.P.NO.1980 OF2013------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2014 ORDER

The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.249 of 2005 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Chittur. He was charge sheeted and prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty of the said offence and he was convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 457 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner had preferred a Criminal Appeal No.523 of 2010 before the Court of Sessions, Adhoc-III, Palakkad Division. After re- CRL.R.P.NO.1980 OF20132 appreciating the evidence on record the learned Sessions judge also confirmed the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence. This revision is filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

2. Though this revision has been filed assailing the verdict of guilty on merits, now the de facto complainant has been impleaded as additional 2nd respondent by an order passed in Criminal M.A.No. 8199 of 2013 and he filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. along with an affidavit stating that the dispute involved in the revision petition has been settled amicably by way of mediation and now he has no subsisting grievance against the revision petitioner.

3. Since they have settled the entire issues, the 2nd respondent has filed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also seeking composition of non compoundable offences invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the CRL.R.P.NO.1980 OF20133 revision petitioner cited decision in [Gian Singh V. State of Punjab 2012(4)KLT108(SC)] and drew my attention to paragraph 57 of the said decision. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

4. Going by the said decision it could be seen that the Apex Court has considered the question whether a non compoundable offence can be compounded invoking the CRL.R.P.NO.1980 OF20134 jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Apex Court held that no straight jacket formula can be provided for exercising power under Section 482 to compound a non-compoundable offence. But certainly, it can be done in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each cases. In addition to that the Apex Court had categorised certain non-compoundable offences for which the jurisdiction and power under Section 482 cannot be exercised. The offences involved in this case is under Section 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. These offences do not find a place in the said category of the offences.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it is fit case for invoking jurisdiction and power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to compound the non compoundable offences under which the revision petitioner has been convicted.

6. Consequently, in supersession of the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate CRL.R.P.NO.1980 OF20135 court, the offences under Section 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the IPC will stand compounded in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside. This composition shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused within the meaning of Section 320 (8) of the Cr.P.C. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- K.HARILAL JUDGE MJL


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //