High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2008-12-04Revision petitions disposed of. The offences un...

State of Kerala v. Joseph Thomas alias Pappachan and Mukesh

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3647 of 2008; CRRP3647 & 3898 of 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: M. Sasidharan Nambiar
Judgment Date: 2008-12-04
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petitions are disposed of. Offences 447 and 427, being compoundable, were permitted to be compounded. Offences 143, 147, 435 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC, being non-compoundable, were acquitted in view of the settlement and the fact that the dispute concerned private property and had been settled; thus, the conviction for these offences is set aside." ,
Final Disposition: Revision petitions disposed of. The offences under sections 143, 147, 435 and 506(ii) read with section 149 IPC are acquitted; offences under 447 and 427 IPC, which are compoundable, are permitted to be compounded; the petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joseph Thomas alias Pappachan
Mukesh

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri G. Priyadarsan Thampi

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Smt. C.M. Kamappu

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in a criminal revision, addresses the question of whether non-compoundable offences under IPC can be compounded in revision where there is a settlement between the parties. Accused 1 and 6, Joseph Thomas alias Pappachan and Mukesh, were convicted in CC No. 371/2001 (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Alappuzha) for offences under sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 506(ii) and 435 read with section 149 IPC. They sought permission to compound the offences under Section 320 CrPC, arguing that the dispute was personal and that there had been a settlement with the de facto complainant, who had no grievance left. The Sessions Court, in Crl.A. 413/2007 and 391/2007, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. The petitioners contended that, in view of a settlement and the purely personal nature of the dispute concerning property, the non-compoundable offences should also be subject to compounding. The State opposed this. The judge distinguished the apex court authorities cited by the petitioners, noting that those decisions concerned exercise under Section 482 for quashing, not compounding under Section 320 CrPC in revision. On the facts, the court held that the non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded, but in the peculiar facts, given the settlement and the damage already compensated, the court acquitted the accused of the noncompoundable offences and allowed compounding of the two offences that are compoundable. The revision petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 143 IPCSection 147 IPCSection 447 IPCSection 427 IPCSection 506(ii) IPCSection 435 read with Section 149 IPCSection 320 CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Interest of justice
Settlement between parties
Non-applicability of Section 482 quashing doctrine to compounding in revision (distinguished)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the dispute was purely personal, the matter involved property, and the parties had settled the dispute, with the complainant having no grievance left. Since sections 447 and 427 IPC are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC and the two courts had already agreed to mutatis mutandis, the petitioners urged that non-compoundable offences (143, 147, 435, 506(ii) read with 149) may also be permitted to be compounded in the interest of justice in light of the settlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded under Section 320 CrPC in revision. It argued that the Apex Court decisions relied upon by the petitioners pertain to quashing under Section 482, not to compounding under Section 320 CrPC in revision, and hence cannot be extended to permit compounding of non-compoundable offences.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sujeetha Thomson v. M.P.Devassy	2003(2) KLT 162	Mentioned Only	Cited by the petitioners; the judge notes the decision concerns quashing under section 482, not compounding in revision, and distinguishes it.
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab	2008(3) KLT 19	Mentioned Only	Cited as authority on related issues but distinguished as inapplicable to compounding in revision under Section 320 CrPC.
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation	2008(3) KLT 769	Mentioned Only	Cited by counsel; discussed in context of settlements and private disputes; not controlling in this revision case.
Manoj Sharma v. State	2008(4) KLT 417	Mentioned Only	Cited for considerations on limits of compounding; not applied to the present revision proceeding.

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 State of Kerala v. Joseph Thomas alias Pappachan and Mukesh 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 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3647 of 2008() -----------------------------CRA.413/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK COURT-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.371/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS ACCUSED 1 & 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH THOMAS, @ PAPPACHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI JOSEPH, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. MUKESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAJAPPAN, KOLIPPURACKAL VEEDU, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENT(S): STATE ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PULIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMAPPU BY ADV.SRI.GOPIKRISHNA FOR DE FACTO COMPLAINANT THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 3898/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.** =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3647 & 3898 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 4th day of December,2008 ## ORDER Accused 1 and 6 in C.C.371/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alappuzha are the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.3647/2008. Accused 2 to 5 therein are the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.3898/2008. Revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced for the offences under sections 143,147,447,427,506(ii)and 435 read with section 149 of IPC. Revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.3647/2008 challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Alappuzha in Crl.A.413/2007 and the other revision petitioners in Crl.A.391/2007. Learned Sessions Judge as per common judgment dated 7.8.2008 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. Revision petitions are filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Revision petitioners along with PW2, de facto complainant in Crl.R.P.3647/2008 filed CRRP3647 & 3898 of2008 2 Crl.M.A.11986/2008 seeking permission to compound the offence under section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the matter has been settled between them and the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the revision petitioners.Crl.M.A.11976/2008 is filed in Crl.R.P.3898/2008 under section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to compound the offence reiterating the same submission. An offence under sections 447 and 427 of IPC are compoundable under sub section (1) of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Even leave of the court is not necessary. Hence petitions are allowed to the limited extent of permitting to compound the offence under section 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The question is whether the noncompoundable offences under sections 143,147,435 and 506(ii) of IPC could be permitted to be compounded in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel appearing for CRRP3647 & 3898 of2008 3 the revision petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for de facto complainant submitted that the dispute was purely personal between the de facto complainant and the revision petitioners and that too in respect of the way claimed by the revision petitioners through the property of the de facto complainant and prosecution case is that revision petitioners committed damage to the fence as well as improvements in the property to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and when revision petitioners have already compensated that damages to the de facto complainant, this court is to permit the parties to compound the non compoundable offences also, eventhough as provided under section 320 of Criminal Procedure, they are not compoundable. Learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in **Sujeetha Thomson v. M.P.Devassy (2003(2) KLT 162), Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008(3) KLT 769 and Manoj Sharma** CRRP3647 & 3898 of2008 4 **v. State (2008(4) KLT 417)** and argued that when the dispute is purely personal as in this case and the case has been settled between the parties, in the interest of justice, permission is to be granted to compound the offence. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the decisions of the Apex Court, I cannot agree with the submission that in view of the said decisions an offence which is not compoundable under section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure could be allowed to be compounded in revision. In all those decisions Apex Court was considering the power of the court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. Finding that when the matter has been settled between the parties and the dispute is purely personal in nature and the trial is yet to be started and no purpose will be served by spending the valuable time of the court when ultimately there is no possibility of a conviction due to the settlement of the dispute between the parties, it CRRP3647 & 3898 of2008 5 was held that the valuable time of the court could be saved so that it could be devoted for taking up other matters which deserves the time of the court and so the cases could be quashed. That principle cannot be applied in respect of an application for permission to compound an offence which is not compoundable under section 320 and that too in revision. It cannot be said that there is no possibility for conviction, when two courts concurrently found the accused guilty and convicted the revision petitioner. 5. But the question whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the petitioners for the offences under sections 143,147,435 and 506(ii) of IPC is sustainable. While considering this aspect it is to be born in mind that the very prosecution case is that the revision petitioners in furtherance of their common object trespassed into the property of PW2, the de facto complainant and destroyed the fence and also the improvements. The offences alleged are CRRP3647 & 3898 of2008 6 consequent to the trespass and mischief. The offences were settled and were compounded. In such circumstance, interest of justice warrants that the accused are not to be convicted for the remaining offences also. Hence in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under section 143,147,435 and 506(ii) read with section 149 of IPC are set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the said offences. Revision petitions are disposed of. ## M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- ## M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006