State of Kerala v. Ramachandran, Biju, Ramakrishnan, Viswan and Ramesh and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/14TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 471 of 2011 ( ) -------------------------------- Crl.A 193/2007 of ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA CC 240/1998 of J.M.F.C., ADOOR REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 & 7: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN - KUZHIVILAYIL VEEDU, KURUMPAKARA P.O., ENADIMANGALAM ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. BIJU, S/O.THANKAPPAN, THADATHIL VEEDU, KURUMPAKARA P.O., ENADIMANGALAM, ADOOR TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, ERAPPIL PADINJATTETHIL, KURUMPAKARA P.O., ENADIMANGALAM ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. VISWAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, MAROOR MURI, KURUMPAKARA P.O., ENADIMANGALAM ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. RAMESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, NARIPPARYIL VEEDU, KURUMPAKARA P.O., ENADIMANGALAM ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ## BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR, PIN - 689 641. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT PMAYA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.2.2014, THE COURT ON 5.3.2014 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Crl.R.P. No. 471 of 2011 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 5[th] day of March 2014 ## **ORDER** The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 in C.C. No.240 of 1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are under Sections 324, 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (for short 'the IPC). 2. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioners along with other accused persons on 13.2.1997 at mid night _Crl.R.P. No. 471 of 2011_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** voluntarily caused hurt to CWs 1 to 3. The first accused beat CW1 with an iron rod causing injury on the left back side, 2[nd] and 3[rd] accused beat CW2 with iron stick causing injuries on the back of chest, 5[th] accused attacked CW3 with a sword stick causing injuries on the scalp of CW3 causing injuries and fracture on the left palm of CW3, the 4[th] accused also attacked CW3 with a sword stick causing injuries on the scalp of CW3 causing injuries and fracture on the left palm of CW3, 8[th] accused beat with iron stick and causing injury on the right wrist of CW3, 7[th] accused beat CW3 with an iron stick causing pain on the left hand of CW3 and thereafter 6[th] and 9[th] accused caused mischief to the tune of `1,500/- and there by committed the offences. 3. The trial court convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under Section 324 of the IPC _Crl.R.P. No. 471 of 2011_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each under Section 326 of the IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each under Section 326 of the IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months each and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under Section 324 of the IPC. Substantiative sentence was ordered to run concurrently. Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 were acquitted for the offences under second 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused Nos.6 and 9 were acquitted of all the offences and the case against 8[th] accused was split up and refiled as C.C. No.526 of 2007. Against that judgment of conviction and sentence, accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 filed Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2007 before the Fast Track Court - _Crl.R.P. No. 471 of 2011_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** III, Pathanamthitta, which was dismissed. Against that judgment the appellants filed this Criminal Revision Petition. 4. During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioners filed Crl.M.A. No.5137 of 2013 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to implead the additional respondents 3 to 5 who are the CWs 1 to 3 who sustained injuries in the occurrence. That petition was allowed and additional respondents 3 to 5 are impleaded. CWs1 to 3 filed separate affidavit stating that the revision petitioners are belonging to scheduled caste and CWs1 to 3 belong to Nayar Community. There are two temples in the area supervised by each community and there was a difference of opinion regarding the management of these temples. They have stated in the affidavit that the disputes between the revision petitioners and themselves were settled amicably and they have no objection in terminating the prosecution. The offence under _Crl.R.P. No. 471 of 2011_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** section 324 of the IPC was compoundable at the time of occurrence. Since the matter is amicably settled between the parties, permission is granted to compound the offence under Section 324 of the IPC. 5. It is well settled that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash the proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The High Court can do so while exercising other jurisdiction such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners invited my attention to paragraph 13 of the decision reported in **Shiji v. Radhika** (2011(4) KLT 682 the S.C.), in which it was held that: “13.It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse _Crl.R.P. No. 471 of 2011_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482, Cr. P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320, Cr. P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the _Crl.R.P. No. 471 of 2011_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence, for, it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.” The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further invited my attention to paragraph 3 of the decision of this court reported in **Bijukumar v. State of Kerala** (2013(3) KLJ 38, in which it was held that: “3. The offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not a compoundable offence. The question to be considered is whether in view of the petition filed by the revision petitioner and de facto complainant, a noncompoundable offence can be compounded or not invoking _Crl.R.P. No. 471 of 2011_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** power under 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012 KHC 4530 :: 2012 ICO 1135 and Thankamma v. State of Kerala 2006 KHC 866 :: 2006 ICO 5118. Going by the 2006(3) KLT 846 2006 KHC 866, it could be seen that the Division Bench of this Court under a reference held that in appropriate cases the Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside conviction entered and sentence imposed under non-compoundable offence to secure the ends of justice on the request of both offender and victim. In Gian Singh's case (supra), the Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of three Judges held that it is within the powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of compromise reached between the offender and the victim, if it is for the interest of the justice. The Court further held that “if they continues the criminal proceedings that 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.” Since the matter is settled between the parties amicably, in _Crl.R.P. No. 471 of 2011_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** order to maintain communal harmony, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioners under Section 326 of the IPC has to be quashed. Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The offence under Section 324 of the IPC in C.C. No.240 of 1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor is compounded and the conviction and sentence of accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 under Section 324 of the IPC is set aside and they are acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The conviction and sentence of accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 under section 326 of the IPC is quashed and they are acquitted. Sd/- ## **M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)** dl/ // TRUE COPY //