High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-09-10Acquittal; sentence set aside; revision petitio...

Saju @ Pravu Saju v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 937 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal
Judgment Date: 2013-09-10
Court Decision / Holding: The sentence imposed on the revision petitioners in Sessions Case No. 382/2008 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.707/2010 is set aside, and the petitioners are acquitted of the offence under Section 320(8) CrPC. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Acquittal; sentence set aside; revision petition disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saju @ Pravu Saju
Ratheesh @ Machan Ratheesh
Joshy S/O Vareed

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Girish
Rajeev
Arun

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Vijaya Banu (Senior Advocate)
• M. Revikrishnan
• Vipin Narayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Liju V. Stephen (Public Prosecutor)
• V. V. Nandagopal Nambiar

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in a criminal revision under Section 482 CrPC, exercises its inherent power to consider quashing a conviction and sentence in a case where amicable settlements between accused and victims and a controlling Supreme Court decision (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab) are present. The petitioners, Saju alias Pravu Saju, Ratheesh alias Machan Ratheesh, and Joshy, were convicted by the II Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, for offences including 324 and 308 IPC read with 34 IPC, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act; they were sentenced to one and two years imprisonment respectively, with these findings upheld by the appellate court. During the revision petition, the de facto complainants PW4, PW5 and PW7 were impleaded as additional respondents and filed affidavits asserting a complete settlement and no surviving grievance, seeking acceptance of the compromise and setting aside the conviction and sentence. Relying on Gian Singh, the court held that while there is no rigid formula for compounding non‑compoundable offences, Sec 482 can be invoked where the ends of justice require it. The court found this to be a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction, quash the sentence, and acquit the petitioners under Sec 320(8) CrPC. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly; the parties are ordered to bear their own costs, and the original conviction is set aside.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 341 IPCSection 324 IPCSection 308 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 27 Arms ActSection 482 CrPCSection 320(8) CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice
Abuse of process of law
No straight jacket formula for compounding non-compoundable offences
Power under Sec. 482 CrPC can be exercised to compound a non-compoundable offence considering the facts and circumstances
Quashing criminal proceedings in light of settlement between victim and wrongdoer

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that, following the Supreme Court’s Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the High Court may invoke its inherent power under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where there is a genuine settlement between the accused and the victim, so as to advance ends of justice and avoid oppression. They relied on affidavits from PW4–PW7 indicating settlement and lack of grievance, and urged that continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process and injury to peaceful relations. They urged setting aside the conviction and sentence and acquitting under Sec. 320(8) CrPC.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, including the additional respondents 2–4 and the State, supported the approach of compounding in light of Gian Singh and the affidavits showing a settled dispute and ongoing harmonious relations. They contended that the court should consider ends of justice and that quashing is appropriate where a compromise exists, so long as it does not violate public interest; the affidavits corroborate the settlement.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab	2012 (4) KLT 108	Positive	Supreme Court held that compounding non‑compoundable offences under Sec. 482 CrPC is possible in appropriate circumstances and that there is no universal formula; the High Court may quash proceedings where ends of justice require, which the Kerala court applied in light of the settlement.

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 Saju @ Pravu Saju 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 K.HARILAL** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/19TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 937 of 2012 ()** **------------------------------CRA 707/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THRISSUR SC 382/2008 OF IIND ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR** **---------------------** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/A1 TO A3 :** **-------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. SAJU @ PRAVU SAJU** - **S/O.SUKUMARAN, MANGATTUCHALIL HOUSE KURIACHIRA VILLAGE, PONGANANKAD DESOM, THRISSUR.** **2. RATHEESH @ MACHAN RATHEESH S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, KURUPPATH HOUSE VILVATTAM VILLAGE & DESOM.** **3. JOSHY S/O.VAREED, CHOONDAL HOUSE VILVATTAM VILLAGE & DESOM** **BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :** **--------------------------------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** ## ***ADDL. R2 TO R4 IMPLEADED** - ***2. GIRISH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, PANDIYATH, NELLIKKAD DESOM, VILVATTOM VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK - 680 103.** **...2/-** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 937 of 2012 () -2-** - ***3. RAJEEV, AGED 27 YEARS,** **S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, PANDIYATH, NELLIKKAD DESOM VILVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 103.** - ***4. ARUN, S/O. ASOKAN** **PANDIYATH, NELLIKKAD DESOM VILVATTOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK - 680 103.** ***ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 26/8/13 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 6231/13 IN CRL.R.P. 937/12.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. LIJU V. STEPHEN** **R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...3/-** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 937 of 2012 ()** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE A : AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH THE REVISION PETITIONERS IN THE CASE.** **ANNEXURE B AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH THE REVISION PETITIONERS IN THE CASE. ANNEXURE C AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SIGNIFYING THE FACTUM OF SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH THE REVISION PETITIONERS IN THE CASE.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **K.HARILAL, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = **Crl.R.P.No.937 of 2012** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10[th] day of September, 2013 ## **O R D E R** The Revision Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in SC No.382 of 2008 on the files of II Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur. They were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. After trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted all the Revision Petitioners for the offences under Section 324 and further convicted A1 and A2 alone for the offence under Section 308 of the IPC and acquitted of all other offences. The Revision Petitioners 1 to 3 were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 324 IPC and Revision Petitioners 1 to 2 were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 308 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence though the Revision Petitioners preferred Criminal 2 Crl.R.P.No.937 of 2012 Appeal No. 707 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Thrissur, the appellate court also confirmed the conviction and sentence as such without any interference. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioners. 2. During the pendency of this revision petition, the de facto complainant and injured who are PW4, PW5, and PW7 are impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 4. Now, PW4, PW5 and PW7 have filed separate affidavits in this revision petition stating that entire dispute between them and the revision petitioners have been amicably settled and now they have no surviving grievance against the revision petitioners. It is also stated that the revision petitioners and the additional respondents are neighbours and now they are living in peace and harmony. The continuation of the case if permitted can only remain as an unnecessary venture causing harm to the smooth relationship between 3 Crl.R.P.No.937 of 2012 the parties. They have no objection in the light of the settlement setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against the Revision Petitioners in this Criminal Revision Petition. In these affidavits, they prayed for accepting the compromise arrived at between the parties and to record the same and set aside the conviction entered and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners drew my attention to **Gian Singh v. State of Punjab** (2012 (4) KLT 108). In the light of the above decision, the instant case is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Sec.482 to compound non-compoundable offences. The counsel appearing for the additional respondents 2 to 4 also supported the above argument and drew my attention to the affidavits filed by the respondents and the present harmonious relationship between the parties specifically stated in those affidavits. In **Gian Singh's** case, the Supreme Court held as follows: Crl.R.P.No.937 of 2012 4 “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 proceedings”. Going by the decision, it could be seen that the Supreme Court observed that there cannot be a straight jacket formula for compounding a non compoundable offence in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. But, at the same time, the Supreme Court has categorized certain offences, for which, the power under Sec.482 cannot be exercised to compound those offences. The offences alleged in this revision petition do not find a place in that category. The Supreme Court further held Crl.R.P.No.937 of 2012 5 that the power under Sec.482 can be exercised for compounding a non-compoundable offence considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the above decision, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for which jurisdiction under Sec.482 can be exercised to quash sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. Consequently, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners in Sessions case No.382/2008 of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur and confirmed in Crl.A.No.707 of 2010 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thrissur will stand set aside and the revision petitioners are acquitted of the offences under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly. **K.HARILAL, JUDGE.** Mjl/stu //True copy// P.A to Judge.