Madras High Court
John Livingston vs /15 on 12 December, 2024
Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 12.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.13638 of 2024
1.John Livingston
2.Titus @ Robert Gilden
3.Sundaradass @ Francis
4.Robinsion
5.Saji
6.Arunkumar
7.Santhosh
8.Aneesh
9.Jose
10.Thangaraj ... Appellants
Vs.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023
The Inspector of Police,
Pazhugal Police Station,
Kanyakumari District
(Crime No.290 of 2014) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records and set aside the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed in S.C.No.122 of 2015 dated 16.12.2022 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District and allow
this appeal and acquit the appellants.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Bharathi
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned order passed in S.C.No.122 of 2015 dated 06.12.2022, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District and acquit the appellants in connection with Crime No.290 of 2014, on the file of the second respondent police.
2/15https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023
2.The accused in S.C.No.122 of 2015, on the file learned Judge, Additional Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District have filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed on them by the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2022 in S.C.No. 122 of 2015:
Sl. Accused Offence Sentence of Imprisonment and No No. Punishable under fine Section 1 A1 to A10 147 of IPC 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment.
2 A1 to A10 448 of IPC 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment.
3 A1 to A10 341 of IPC 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment.
4 A1 to A10 506(ii) of IPC 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment.3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 5 A1 to A10 3(i) TNPPDL Act 3 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months Rigorous imprisonment.
2.1. According to the prosecution, on 04.11.2014, at about 03.00 pm., the appellants trespassed into the premises belonging to the Pentecostal church and demolished the 100 mts long and 9 feet high compound wall, pine trees and rubber trees with the help of JCB bearing registration No.TN-75-J-0468 and caused loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs). Thereafter, the defacto complainant has given a complaint to the respondent. The respondent Police registered a case in Crime No. 290 of 2014 against the appellants, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections147, 148, 448, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act.
2.2.After conducting investigation, the respondent police filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, took the same on 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 file in P.R.C.No.58 of 2015 and furnished the copies as per Section 207 Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on the ground that the same was exclusively triable by Sessions Court. After committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District taken the same on file in S.C.No.122 of 2015. The learned trial Judge, after framing the necessary charges, read over the same to all the accused but they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and exhibited 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and no material objects were marked. On the side of the appellants no witnesses examined and documents were marked.
4. The learned Trial Judge after completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against him in the prosecution evidence and the appellants denied as false. The learned trial judge, after considering the same, convicted the appellants as stated 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 above.
5.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that during the pendency of this appeal, the parties were entered into compromise and settled the matter between themselves and also filed the memorandum of compromise to that effect. Therefore, he seeks to allow this case.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), submitted that the parties were entered into compromise and have filed a petition to compound the offences under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., and 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. Today (12.12.2024), when the matter was taken up for hearing, both counsel on record would submit that the dispute between the parties settled between themselves and they have also filed joint compromise memo along with the petition under Sections 320 of Cr.P.C., and 482 of Cr.P.C, in Crl.M.P.(MD).No.13638 of 2024, which is extracted here under :-
6/15https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023
8. The contents of the above joint compromise memo are read over and explained to both the parties and they would admit the same. The joint compromise memo filed by both the parties is recorded.
8/15https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023
9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal v. State of M.P., reported in 2022 (14) SCC 531 has held that even in the case of appeal against the conviction is pending, when the parties are entered into compromise when the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and the parties are entered into compromise without any duress and the offence is not against the society and the accused has no previous antecedents, the criminal proceedings can be annulled and the relevant paragraphs are follows:
10. The compendium of these broad fundamentals structured in more than one judicial precedent, has been recapitulated by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, para 15 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] elaborating : (SCC pp. 704-705, para 15) “15. … 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non- compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4.*** 15.5.While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.” (emphasis supplied) 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023
11. True it is that offences which are “non-compoundable” cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320CrPC. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320CrPC, which is the exclusive domain of legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320CrPC, which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of “compoundable” offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320CrPC is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482CrPC. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482CrPC in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
18. It is now a well crystallised axiom that the plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482CrPC conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sublime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation.
19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320CrPC where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences “compoundable” within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482CrPC or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320CrPC. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any; 19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; and 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.
The only dispute between the accused side and the defacto complainant's side is relating to the enjoyment of pathway. Now, the said dispute has been resolved in the civil suit vide compromise decree in O.S.No.188 of 2014. In view of the special circumstances of this case, this Court inclines to accept the compounding petition filed by the parties and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 147, 148, 448, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act in S.C.No.122 of 2015.
10. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District,in S.C.No.122 of 2015 dated 06.12.2022, is hereby set aside and the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The accused are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Bail bond if any, executed by the accused shall 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 stand discharged. Fine amount paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them forthwith.
12.12.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sbn
Note: Issue Order Copy on 24.12.2024
To
1.The Additional Sessions Court,
Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District
2.The Inspector of Police,
Pazhugal Police Station,
Kanyakumari District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Record Section (Criminal),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
14/15https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.13638 of 2024 12.12.2024 15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis