Kerala High Court
Nanu vs State Of Kerala on 20 September, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938
CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2155 OF 2014 ()
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA NO.665/2005 OF SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY
DATED 20-09-2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.528/2004 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,THALASSERY DATED 23-11-2005
-----------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO 3:
---------------------------------------------
NANU, AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O.KUNHAMBU,
RESIDING AT PUTHOOR AMSOM,
PUTHOOR DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.P.S.SISHOY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031,
(CRIME NO 79/1995 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DIST)
** ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2,R3 & R4 IMPLEADED.
2. MADHAVI, D/O CHATHU,
PUTHUR, THALASSERY, KANNUR.
3. KUNJURAMAN, S/O KUNJAPPU,
PUTHUR, THALASSERY,
KANNUR.
4. MATHA, D/O KUNJAPPU,
PUTHUR, THALASSERY,
KANNUR.
ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NOS.2,3 AND 4 AS PER
ORDER DATED 04.08.2016 IN CRIMINAL M.A. NO.4771 OF 2016.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.P.SATHI
R2 -R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.RENY ANTO
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
NS
P.D. RAJAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl. Rev.Pet. No.2155 of 2014
----------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2016
O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred by the 3rd accused against the concurrent judgment in Criminal Appeal No.665 of 2005 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thalassery. He was charge sheeted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery in C.C. No.528 of 2004 under Secs.143, 147, 448, 341 and 324 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code ( 'IPC' for short). The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted him under Secs.143, 147, 148, 324, 341 and 448 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Secs.148 and 341 read with Sec.149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec.448 read with Sec.149 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec.324 read with Sec.149 IPC. No separate sentence was imposed under Secs.143 and 147 IPC. Being aggrieved by that the accused preferred the above Criminal Appeal before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Crl. Rev.Pet. No.2155 of 2014 2 Thalassery, where the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence. Being aggrieved by that the accused preferred this revision petition.
2. The charge against the accused is that on 10.03.1995 at 9.00 p.m., the accused along with four others and ten identifiable persons unlawfully assembled due to political enimity and in prosecution of their common object, trespassed into the house of PW1 with dangerous weapons like chopper, wooden sticks and stones and attacked PW1 to PW3 while they were sitting in the veranda of their house. As a result, they sustained serious injuries and immediately removed to Government hospital, Thalassery. In this incident, Panoor Police registered a crime and after completing investigation, SHO, Panoor Police station laid charge in the trial court. A2 and A3 were absconding, hence the charge against them was split up and refiled as C.C. No.528 of 2004. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Exts.P1 to P6. MO1 and MO2 were marked as material objects. Incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while Crl. Rev.Pet. No.2155 of 2014 3 questioning them. They did not adduce any defence evidence.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that both parties have settled the matter out of court and filed Criminal M.A. No.4770 of 2016. I have perused the application. Revision petitioner and the injured were present. Public Prosecutor identified the injured.
4. When the parties are settling the matter, there is no hesitation in allowing the compounding application. The offences punishable under the IPC compoundable are mentioned in the table provided under Sec.320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case the offences under Secs.448, 324 and 341 read with Sec.149 IPC are compoundable and the offence under Sec.148 is a non compoundable offence. Sec.320(6) Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sec.401 to allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound. When the composition of offence under the Crl. Rev.Pet. No.2155 of 2014 4 section is made, it shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused under Sec.320(8) Cr.P.C. with whom the offence has been compounded. Accordingly, the offence under Secs.448, 324 and 341 read with Sec.149 IPC are compounded and the accused is acquitted and set at liberty under Sec.320(8) Cr.P.C.
5. The offence under Sec.148 IPC is a non compoundable offence. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] explained the parameters of the high Court in quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR invoking the inherent jurisdiction. To secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court, the Apex Court held that the power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised, which reads as follows:
" The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the Crl. Rev.Pet. No.2155 of 2014 5 process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and Crl. Rev.Pet. No.2155 of 2014 6 prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 448 read with Sec.149 which was modified by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thalassery are set aside. The accused is acquitted and set at liberty in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties.
Sd/-
P.D. RAJAN,
JUDGE
/ True Copy /
NS/09.08.2016 P.A. To Judge