High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-08-22Criminal Revision Petition disposed; main offen...

Moorthi @ Krishnan @ Krishna Moorthy and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.R.P.No.3097/2006

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2016-08-22
Court Decision / Holding: The criminal revision petition is disposed of by allowing compounding under CrPC 320; the main offences 143, 147, 448, 323 read with 149 IPC are quashed due to the settlement; conviction and sentence are set aside; the accused are acquitted and directed to be released.
Final Disposition: Criminal Revision Petition disposed; main offences compounded; accused acquitted and released.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Moorthi alias Krishnan alias Krishna Moorthy
Sajin
Raman alias Ramachandran
Ranganadhan alias Kumar
Ganesan
V.A. Ramadas

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Addl.R2: Sethumadhavan, S/o Narayanan Nair, aged 65 years, Indira Nivas, Pengodu Palayam, Chakkanthara, Parali, Palakkadu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Sri K. Praveen Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri D. Chandrasenan
• Adv. Sri Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt (for Addl.R2)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears a Criminal Revision Petition by six accused challenging their conviction by the Judicial First Class Magistrate and the confirmation by the Addl. Sessions Judge in respect of offences under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323 read with Section 149 IPC, in C.C. No. 774/1999 (Palakkad). The incident, dated 31 August 1999 at about 8 pm, involved an alleged unlawful assembly that trespassed into the verandah of a shop in Parali and assaulted PW2, causing injury, loss of a tooth and damage to property. The trial court convicted the accused under 143, 147, 448, and 323 read with 149 IPC, while acquitting them of 326 and 427 read with 149 IPC; the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal. The revision petition petitions for exercise of jurisdiction under CrPC 401/401 and contends that the parties have settled the matter out of court with PW2 receiving Rs. 30,000 as compensation. The court relies on the principle in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to permit compounding of offences where permissible, noting that offences under 323 and 448 are compoundable and that 34 and 149 are compoundable under 320(3) CrPC. Consequently, the court quashes the main offences and conviction, acquitting the accused and directing their release, disposing of the petition. The order reflects a liberal, settlement-based resolution consistent with CrPC 320 and Gian Singh doctrine.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 326, 427, and 149 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 320 CrPCSection 320(3) CrPCSection 320(6) CrPCSection 320(8) CrPCCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012(4)KLT 108(SC)) – liberal approach to compounding of offences under CrPC after settlement; if main offences are compounded, related offences can be quashed; supports acquittal on compounding.
Compounding of offences under Section 320 CrPC – framework guiding when offences can be resolved by compromise and how it affects conviction/sentence.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of court, with PW2 receiving Rs. 30,000 as compensation. They contended that the offences under 323 and 448 are compoundable and that 34 and 149 are compoundable under 320(3) CrPC; citing Gian Singh to permit compounding, they urged quashing of the main offences (143, 147, 448, 323) and acquittal of the accused upon compounding, thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence.

Contentions of Respondents

No detailed appellate arguments are recorded in the document; the judgment primarily discusses the compounding framework and Gian Singh to justify the proposed compounding and acquittal in light of the settlement.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012(4)KLT 108(SC)	Positive	Cited to support liberal compounding of offences after settlement; authorizes quashing of main offences when compounds are made, leading to acquittal.

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 Moorthi @ Krishnan @ Krishna Moorthy and others v. State of Kerala 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 P.D.RAJAN** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2016/31ST SRAVANA, 1938** ## **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3097 of 2006 ( )** ## **--------------------------------CRL.A.NO. 273/2003 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT NO. III), PALAKKAD CC.NO. 774/1999 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PALAKKAD ------------------------** ## **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6:** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. MOORTHI @ KRISHNAN @ KRISHNA MOORTHY, S/O. SREENIVASAN, SREENIVAS,PARALI GRAMAM,** **PALAKKAD.** **2. SAJIN, S/O. PONNUCHAMI, PARALI.** **3. RAMAN @ RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, SHANMUGHA NIVAS, PARALI GRAMAM.** **4. RANGANADHAN @ KUMAR, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, SHANMUGHA NIVAS, PARALI GRAMAM.** **5. GANESAN, S/O. RAMAYYER, GANAPATHI NIVAS, PARALI GRAMAM.** **6. V.A.RAMADAS, S/O. APPU, VILAKKATHALA VEEDU, ODANNUR, PARALI.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **CRL.R.P.NO.3097/2006** ## ***ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED** ***ADDL.R2: SETHUMADHAVAN,** **S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, INDIRA NIVAS, PENGODU PALAYAM, CHAKKANTHARA, PARALI, PALAKKADU.** ***ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/8/2016 IN CRL.MA.NO.5195/2016.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.D.CHANDRASENAN** **ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **P. D. RAJAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** **Crl.R.P. No. 3097 of 2006** **- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2016 ## **O R D E R** This revision petition is filed by the accused against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.273 of 2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-III, Palakkad. They were charge sheeted in C.C. No.774 of 1999 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad, under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 326 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ( _hereinafter referred to as 'IPC')_ . The learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Sections 143, 147, 448 and 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and acquitted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. Against that, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.273 of 2003, which was **Crl.R.P. No. 3097 of 2006** ## **-: 2 :-** dismissed by the the learned Sessions Judge. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The charge against the accused is that on 31.08.1999 at 8 pm, the accused in prosecution of their common object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the varandha of the shop of PW2 in the shopping complex building of Parali Panchayat. The 1[st] accused beat with his hand on the ear of PW2 and pushed him down, Accused 2 to 4 kicked and beat PW2 with hands, the 1[st] accused pushed him down in the lane and thereby sustained injuries and lost one tooth and also destroyed two glass jars with sweets and caused a loss of `500/-. Mankara police registered the crime and after completing investigation filed charge report before the trial court. During trial, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 **Crl.R.P. No. 3097 of 2006** ## **-: 3 :-** to P5. Incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. They did not adduce any defence evidence. 3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that parties have settled the matter out of court and revision petitioners paid compensation of `30,000/- to PW2, who is the injured in this case. I have also perused the compromise petition Crl.M.A. No.5194/2016. PW2 also present here. He submitted that his son is also an injured, who is not present and he is now working in Saudi Arabia. It is seen that Pw2 is the injured and he has no complaint against the revision petitioners. According to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 _(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), t_ he offences punishable under Sections of **Crl.R.P. No. 3097 of 2006** **-: 4 :-** the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. The offences under Sections 323 and 448 are compoundable offences. Offences under Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320(3) of the Code. According to Section 320(6) of the Code, _the High Court or Court of Sessions acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 of the Code, may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section._ When composition of an offence is made it shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded under Section 320(8) of the Code. 4. Apex Court in _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [2012(4)KLT 108(SC)] held as follows: **Crl.R.P. No. 3097 of 2006** **-: 5 :-** _“d. Minor offences as under S.279, I.P.C. may be permitted to be compounded on the basis of legitimate settlement between the parties. Yet another offence which remains non-compoundable is S.506(II), I.P.C., which is punishable with 7 years imprisonment. It is the judicial experience that an offence under S.506 I.P.C. in most cases is based on the oral declaration with different shades of intention. Another set of offences, which ought to be liberally compounded, are Ss.147 and 148, I.P.C. more particularly where other offences are compoundable. It may be added here that the State of Madhya Pradesh vide M.P. Act No.17 of 1999 (Section 3) has made Ss.506 (II) I.P.C., 147 IPC and 148, I.P.C. compoundable offences by amending the schedule under S.320, Cr.P.C._ When main offences are compounded, the offence under Sections 143, 147 of the IPC can be quashed invoking the above principles. 5. The offences under Sections 323 and 448 of the IPC are compounded and the conviction and sentence by the Judicial First Class Magistrate is **Crl.R.P. No. 3097 of 2006** ## **-: 6 :-** hereby set aside. Accordingly, in view of the compromise of Sections 448, 323 the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC are set aside and accused are acquitted and set at liberty. This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **P. D. RAJAN, JUDGE** DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge