High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeRevision petitions allowed in part: offence com...

CRL.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007

Case / Petition Number:CRL.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & CRL.R.P.No.242 of 2007

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • G. Girish
Judgment Date
2023-11-27
Court Decision / Holding
The High Court allowed Crl.M.A No.3/2023; the offences under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 IPC (read with Section 34 IPC) stood compounded; the petitioners are acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned judgment; Crl.R.P.No.242 of 2007 is dismissed as not pressed in light of the settlement.
Final Disposition
Revision petitions allowed in part: offence compounded and accused acquitted under 320(8) Cr.P.C read with 482 Cr.P.C; 3079/2006 disposed; 242/2007 dismissed as not pressed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • PRATHEESH S/O SUKUMARAN
  • SANTHOSH @ PRASAD S/O SUKUMARAN
  • SUKUMARAN S/O MADHAVAN
  • MOHANAN S/O NARAYANAN

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA
  • MOLLY
  • RAJU S/O KRISHNAN
  • PRATHEESH S/O SUKUMARAN
  • SANTHOSH @ PRASAD S/O SUKUMARAN
  • STATE OF KERALA (S.I. OF POLICE KALIYAR POLICE STATION)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • C.C.PADMAKUMAR
  • • M.K.SAMYUKTHA(K/447/2015) (Amicus Curiae)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • MANSOOR.B.H.
  • • SAKEENA BEEGUM
  • • SRI SANAL P.RAJ - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision in which Crl.R.P. No.3079 of 2006 and Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 were heard together. The petitioners, four accused in the trial court for offences under IPC Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34, were convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thodupuzha, and the Sessions Court modified the sentence. The petitions seek to compounding the offences under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., claiming amicable settlements with the co-accused/ complainants and asserting no grievance. The petition discusses the non-compoundable nature of Section 326 IPC but relies on the Supreme Court dictum in Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021 KHC 6543) that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. may be used in appropriate cases to terminate criminal proceedings when there is a voluntary, genuine settlement and public interest supports ending the prosecution. On 27 November 2023, the High Court allowed the applications, compounding the offences and acquitting the petitioners under 320(8) Cr.P.C. read with 482 Cr.P.C. The revisions were disposed of: the 3079/2006 petition disposed with acquittal; the 242/2007 petition dismissed as not pressed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Cr.P.C. Section 320(8)Cr.P.C. Section 482IPC Sections 447, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34IPC Section 326NDPS Act provisions (context)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and therefore sought compounding of the offences under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., relying on the Supreme Court’s Ramgopal decision to exercise inherent powers for terminating criminal proceedings in appropriate circumstances. They argued that the offences (447/323/324/326 IPC) are capable of being compounded in light of the settlement and lack of ongoing grievance by involved parties.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents opposed compounding, citing the non-compoundable nature of some offences (notably Section 326 IPC) and emphasizing the need for caution in exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially given the gravity of offences and the societal impact. They acknowledged the amicable settlement but urged adherence to statutory constraints and proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramgopal & anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh2021 KHC 6543PositiveCited to support the proposition that High Courts can exercise inherent powers under 482 Cr.P.C read with 320 Cr.P.C to compound offences in appropriate circumstances, particularly where there is an amicable settlement and public interest justifies ending the prosecution.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against CRL.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.GIRISH`** ``` MONDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`CRL.REV.PET NO.3079 OF 2006`** ``` AGAINST THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BY JUDGMENT DATED ``` ``` 02.12.2005 IN CC NO.334/2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA CRL. APPEAL NO.336/2005 AND CRL.APPEAL NO.340/2005 BY A COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2006 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT ``` ``` CASES), THODUPUZHA ``` ``` REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ``` |**`1`**|**`MR.PRATHEESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN,`**| |---|---| ||**`KUNNEL VEETTIL, MUNDANMUDIKARA,, VANNAPPURAM`**| ||**`VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.`**| |**`2`**|**`MR.SANTHOSH @ PRASAD S/O.SUKUMARAN`**| ||**`KUNNEL VEETTIL, MUNDANMUDIKARA,, VANNAPPURAM`**| ||**`VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.`**| |**`3`**|**`MR.SUKUMARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN`**| ||**`KUNNEL VEETTIL, MUNDANMUDIKARA,, VANNAPPURAM`**| ||**`VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.`**| |**`4`**|**`MR.MOHANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN`**| ||**`VALIYAKALUMKAL HOUSE, MUNDANMUDIKARA,, VANNAPPURAM`**| ||**`VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.`**| ||**`BY ADVS.`**| ||**`C.C.PADMAKUMAR`**| ||**`M.K.SAMYUKTHA(K/447/2015) (Amicus Curie)`**| ## **`RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:`** |**`1`**|**`STATE OF KERALA`**| |---|---| ||**`PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.`**| |**`2`**|**`MOLLY`**| ||**`W/O RAJU, AGED 49 YEARS, KUNNELVEETTIL,`**| ||**`MUNDANMUDIKARA, VANNAPURAM, THODUPUZHA 685607`**| ||**`(IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 24/11/23`**| ||**`IN CRL.M.A 2/23 IN CRL.RP 3079/2006).`**| 2 Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 ``` 3RAJU S/O KRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, KUNNELVEETTIL MUNDANMUDIKARA VANNAPURAM, THODUPUZHA 685607 (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R.3 AS PER ORDER DATED 24/11/23 IN CRL.M.A 2/23 IN CRL.RP 3079/2006). BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MANSOOR.B.H. SAKEENA BEEGUM ``` ``` SRI SANAL P.RAJ- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.242/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.GIRISH ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`CRL.REV.PET NO.242 OF 2007`** ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2006 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS ACT CASE, THODUPUZHA IN CRL.A.NO.340/2005 AND CC 334/2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA ``` ``` REVISION PETITIONER/PW1 & PW3: ``` ``` 1MOLY, W/O.RAJU, PARAKKAL HOUSE, MUNDANMUDI P.O., NARUMKANAM, VANNAPPURAM. ``` - **`2 RAJU, S/O.KRISHNAN`** ``` PARAKKAL HOUSE, MUNDANMUDI P.O., NARUMKANAM, VANNAPPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADV MANSOOR.B.H. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 3 & 4:`** - **`1 PRATHEESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN,`** ``` KUNNEL VEETIL, MUNDANMUDIKARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. ``` - **`2 SANTHOSH @ PRASAD`** ``` S/O SUKUMARAN, KUNNEL VEETIL,, MUNDANAMUDIKARA,, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. ``` ``` 3STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM., (S.I. OF POLICE KALIYAR POLICE STATION.) ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` C.C.PADMAKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.3079/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 ## **G.GIRISH, J.** **--------------Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006** ## **& Crl.R.P.No.242 of 2007** **-----------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of November, 2023 -------------------------------------------------** ## **O R D E R** **Crl.M.A No.3 of 2023 in Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006** The revision petitioners, along with additional respondents 2 and 3 have filed this petition under Sections 320(8) and 482 Cr.P.C., for compounding the offence involved. 2. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha, for the commission of offence under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. No separate punishment was awarded for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. In the appeal filed before the Sessions Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha confirmed the 5 Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 conviction and modified the sentence. The accused were accordingly, sentenced by the appellate court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 447 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay fine Rs.5,000/- each under Section 326 I.P.C. Challenging the above concurrent findings of conviction and the sentence imposed by the appellate court, the petitioners preferred Crl.R.P No.3079/2006. In the meanwhile, additional respondents 2 and 3 filed Crl.R.P No.242/2007, seeking enhancement of sentence awarded by the appellate court. 3. When both these cases were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel representing both parties submitted that the issue has been amicably settled between them and hence, it is highly necessary to compound the offence and close the revision proceedings. On the basis of the application filed by the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P No.242/2007 as Crl.M.A 2 and 3 in Crl.R.P No.3079/2006. 4. In the present application filed by the petitioners and additional respondents 2 and 3, it is stated that the additional 6 Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 respondents 2 and 3 are having no grievance at all against the revision petitioners, since the matter has been amicably settled between them. Accordingly, it is requested that the composition of the offence may be accepted and the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P No.3079/2006 to be acquitted. 5. With regard to the nature of the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., which is non-compoundable, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners brought to my notice the decision of the Apex Court in **Ramgopal & anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2021 KHC 6543]** , wherein it has been held as follows: “19. We thus sum – up and hold that as opposed to S.320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra – ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Art.142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of S.320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused 7 Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and / or other relevant considerations.” Thus it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision that in appropriate cases where the parties have amicably settled the dispute, and the victim willingnessly consented to the nullification, it is highly necessary to wind up the proceedings in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the offences involved are to be compounded invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 320 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, Crl.M.A No.3/2023 is allowed. The offence under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 326, for which the petitioners are convicted by the court below, are compounded and the petitioners are acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. ## **Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006** In the light of the above order in Crl.M.A No.3/2023, this Crl.R.P No.3079/2023 is disposed of, setting aside the impugned judgment of the court below. 8 Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 ## **Crl.R.P.No.242 of 2007** Crl.R.P No.242 of 2007 is dismissed as not pressed, in the light of the above settlement between the parties, as evident from this petition. **Sd/-** **G.GIRISH, JUDGE** vgd 9 Crl.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 & Crl.R.P. No.242 of 2007 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.R.P No.242 of 2007`** ## **`PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE-1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT IN CRL.A.NO.336/2005 AND CRL.A.NO.340/2005 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS ACT CASES, THODUPUZHA DATED 24.06.2006. ANNEXURE-II TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CC NO.334/2004 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-I, THODUPUZHA DATED 02.12.2005. ```