IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3647 of 2008()
1. JOSEPH THOMAS, @ PAPPACHAN,
... Petitioner
2. MUKESH, AGED 30 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI
For Respondent :SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :04/12/2008
O R D E R
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 non- compoundable 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