Kerala High Court
C.K. Sudhakaran vs C.C. Ramkishore on 5 September, 2008
Author: R.Basant
Bench: R.Basant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3297 of 2008()
1. C.K. SUDHAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.C. RAMKISHORE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3297 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. Accused is none other than the son of the petitioner. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The father-son duo during the pendency of the proceedings have settled the case as they should. They approach the learned Magistrate with an application for composition under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application by the impugned order holding that the offence punishable under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C is not compoundable.
2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no section of offence as Section 506(ii) I.P.C. Under Section 320(1) Cr.P.C, the offence under Section 506 I.P.C is declared to be compoundable. Therefore the order of the court below is wrong, it is contended.
3. I find absolutely no merit in this contention. Though Section 506 I.P.C does not use the notation 506(i) and 506(ii), Crl.M.C. No.3297 of 2008 2 that section has two parts. The former part of the offence under Section 506 I.P.C is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both. The latter part of Section 506 I.P.C deals with the graver offence of intimidation where the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt etc. In that event, the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years or with fine or with both. A reading of Section 320 Cr.P.C reveals that what is declared to be compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C is only the offence which falls under the former part of Section 506 I.P.C, which is commonly referred to for convenience as the offence under Section 506(i) I.P.C. The graver offence which is usually and commonly referred to as the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C is thus, without any doubt, non compoundable. The learned Magistrate cannot, in these circumstances, be said to have committed any error in refusing to accept the prayer for composition of a non compoundable offence. The grievance raised against the impugned order is thus found to be without any merit whatsoever.
4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner alters his request in the course of arguments and requests that in the light of the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Crl.M.C. No.3297 of 2008 3 Punjab [2008 A.I.R SCW 2287], this Court may be pleased to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings against his son. The petitioner is the defacto complainant. He has compounded the offence alleged though it is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that the sweep of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not in any way fettered by the stipulations of Section 320 Cr.P.C and in an appropriate case, it is open to this Court to invoke such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C notwithstanding the fact that the offence is not compoundable. The counsel relies on the decisions in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana [A.I.R (2003) SC 1386] and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra) in support of this contention.
5. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly does not oppose the said prayer.
6. The decisions in B.S.Joshy v. State of Haryana and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab are authority for the proposition that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C which Crl.M.C. No.3297 of 2008 4 have been described to be awesome, can in an appropriate case be invoked even to do justice beyond the law. The sweep of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C reserved in favour of the High Court to do justice in the facts of a given case is not fettered by the stipulations of Section 320 Cr.P.C. I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where such jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab must be invoked.
7. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
ii) C.C.No.476 of 2007pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kannur against the 1st respondent, the son of the petitioner in which the petitioner is the defacto complainant is hereby quashed;
iii) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, pending against the accused persons and his sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-