IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 271 of 2007()
1. KOZHIPARAMBATH MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
2. C.SURESHAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. S.H.O.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/02/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.271 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2007
ORDER
The 1st petitioner is the accused and the 2nd petitioner is the
defacto complainant in a crime registered under Section 420 I.P.C as
early as in 1990. Investigation was complete. Final report has been
filed. The 1st petitioner/the accused has not entered appearance. The
case against him has been transferred to the list of Long Pending
Cases. The 1st petitioner/the accused has now settled the dispute
with the 2nd petitioner/the defacto complainant. They want to report
composition before the learned Magistrate. The 1st petitioner/the
accused is employed abroad. He is unable to appear before the court
personally. He wants to see the end of the prosecution against him.
It is in these circumstances that the 1st petitioner/the accused and the
2nd petitioner/the defacto complainant have together come before this
Court with a prayer that the offence allegedly committed by the
accused may be permitted to be compounded and proceedings
quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned
Magistrate and report to the learned Magistrate the composition of
the offence allegedly committed by the 1st petitioner against the 2nd
petitioner. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate
Crl.M.C.No.271 of 2007 2
would not consider such application for composition expeditiously and
on merits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since
the 1st petitioner is not able to enter appearance personally, they
apprehend that the learned Magistrate may not entertain the
application for composition. A reading of Section 320 Cr.P.C clearly
shows that composition can be a unilateral act by the persons
mentioned in column 3. Except on exceptional reasons, it is not
necessary to rigidly and ritualistically insist on personal appearance
of the accused when the complainant compounds a compoundable
offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C. I have no reason to assume that
the learned Magistrate would unnecessarily and ritualistically insist
on the personal presence of the 1st petitioner/accused. He can
certainly appear before the learned Magistrate through counsel and
the petitioners can seek acceptance of the composition after
according the requisite leave under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. In that
event, the learned Magistrate must consider such request on merits
and pass appropriate orders. The mere fact that the parties have
compounded the offence and settled the dispute, is no reason by itself
to justify invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the
facts of this case, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate must be
directed to consider such application for composition and that is why I
do not choose to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.271 of 2007 3
4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, dismissed with the above
observations.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-