Madras High Court
Thamarai @ Thamarai Selvan vs State Represented By on 24 November, 2017
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.11.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.R.C.(MD) No.671 of 2007 and M.P.(MD) No.10800 of 2017 Thamarai @ Thamarai Selvan .. Petitioner/Accused Versus
1. State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.28 of 2001) .. Respondent/Complainant
2.Saroja D/o Velusamy (Impleaded in Crl.M.P.No.10800/2017 .. Defacto complainant. As per order dated 24.11.2017 in this Crl.M.P.) Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment in Crl.A.No.40 of 2006, dated 13.07.2007, on the file of the Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai confirming the judgment in C.C.No.21 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudikkottai.
!For Petitioner : Mr.K.Baalasundharam
^For Defacto Complainant : Mr.M.Palani Rajan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
:Order
The revision has been filed by the petitioner/sole accused, against the Judgment, dated 13.07.2007, made in Crl.A.No.40 of 2006, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, confirming the conviction and sentence of one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 417 IPC imposed on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, vide Judgment dated 10.11.2005, in C.C.No.21 of 2002.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the petitioner/sole accused and the defacto complainant, Saroja belonged to Udayalpatti Village in Pudukkottai District and both of them have loved each other for two years and that the accused asked the defacto complainant to have sexual relationship with him, when she refused, he gave false promise to marry her and had sexual intercourse many times. As a result, the defacto complainant became pregnant by eight months, that when the defacto complainant asked him to marry, he demanded dowry of 10 sovereigns gold jewels and Rs.10,000/- in order to marry her else refused to marry her. Thereafter, on 08.10.2001, when the Panchayat was conducted, the accused demanded the said dowry to marry the defacto complainant and thus the accused has cheated her and caused her mental and physical cruelty and hence liable to be punished under Section 417 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Based on the complaint given by the said Saroja/defacto complainant, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.28 of 2001 and after investigation filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 417 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the petitioner.
3. When the accused appeared before the Court, the prosecution materials were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and after initial questioning charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and when questioned about the charges framed against him, he had denied the charges and therefore, the case was taken up for trial.
4. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.s. 1 to 17, were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence were adduced.
5. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced, vide judgment dated 10.11.2005, found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and acquitted him from the said charges and found the accused/petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 417 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.40 of 2006, before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai and the learned Appellate Judge, after carefully re-appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, by judgment dated 13.07.2007, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there are several legal points available in the revision, the conviction being one for an offence under Section 417 IPC and that the offence being compoundable the petitioner in order to give quietus to the issue had entered in to compromise with the defacto complainant who is a relative and in pursuance of the compromise the parties have filed a joint petition for compounding the offence and prayed that the offence against the petitioner may be compounded and the petitioner may be acquitted. He has also further contended that the petitioner was in prison for 30 days during remand and thereafter another 30 days after conviction and as a whole he had suffered incarceration for 60 days and now since the parties have entered into compromise the petitioner may be acquitted for the offence under Section 417 IPC. The compounding petition was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.10800 of 2017.
7.Mrs.Saroja-Defacto Complainant appeared in person before the Court and she was identified by Mr.Palani Raja, Advocate appearing for her. The defacto complainant Saroja daughter of Valayutham had filed an affidavit stating that the Revision Petitioner and herself are relatives and they belonged to the same village and community and that due to the intervention of the elders the dispute between them has been compromised and as per the compromise she has received Rs.2,50,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.385712 dated 24.11.2017 as full quit and submitted that she has no other claim from the Revision Petitioner and since the dispute between herself and the Revision Petitioner being personal in nature and it having been dissolved she wanted to give quietus to the issue and submitted that the case may be compounded and in view of such compounding the petitioner may be acquitted.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 417 IPC is compoundable and he has no objection that the matter being compromised and compounded between the parties.
9. In the case reported in (2014) 13 SCC 275 Deva Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and another in a matter relating to offence under Section 420 IPC the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
?5.We are informed that out of two years imprisonment the appellant has undergone six months imprisonment. Offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person who is cheated. Since the parties are related to each other and they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence. Hence, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC for which the appellant was convicted is compounded because it is compoundable with the permission of the court. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge.?
10.It is to be noted that in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, it has been held that the High Court by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can accept the compromise between the parties and permit compounding or even quash in appropriate cases even if the offences are of non-compoundable nature. Now, taking into consideration the case on hand, the charge and conviction against the petitioner is for the offence under Section 417 IPC. As per Section 320 Cr.P.C., offence under Section 417 IPC is compoundable. In this case, the petitioner and the defacto complainant are relatives and they have compromised among themselves and they have expressed their intention to give a quietus to the issues and in such circumstances, this Court deems it fit to accept the Memo of Compromise and permit the petitioner to compound the case and give a quietus to the dispute in the interest of justice.
11. In the result, this Revision is allowed in terms of compromise entered into between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The judgment in Crl.A.No.40 of 2006 dated 13.07.2007 rendered by the Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai confirming the judgment in C.C.No.21 of 2002 by the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from all the charges. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1. The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai District.
.