Madras High Court
Durairaj vs The State Rep. By on 12 December, 2017
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.219 of 2008
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11273 of 2017
Durairaj ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused-1
-vs-
The State rep. by
Sub Inspector of Police,
Kulathur Police Station,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed, under Section 397 and 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 10.12.2007 and
made in CA.No.17 of 2007 on the file of Additional District Court and Fast
Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi, confirming the judgment of conviction for an
offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentencing the petitioner to under go 2
years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo 6
months simple imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Vilathikulam.
!For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
^For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh
Additional Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
The Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment dated 10.12.2007 made in CA.No.17 of 2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi, confirming the Judgment, dated 03.02.2007, made in C.C.No.125 of 2004, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, convicting the petitioner / accused for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C., and sentencing him to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.
2.The case of the prosecution, as per the charge sheet, in brief is that the accused 1 to 3 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant. On 13.11.2003, at about 06.00 p.m., when the de facto complainant was in her house, A1 / husband beaten her by spoon repeatedly, by questioning as to how she could have gone for the work assigned by others, thereby, the petitioner / A1 had caused grievous injuries on her left fore arm. Further, on 14.11.2003, at about 06.00 a.m., when the de facto complainant was in her house, the accused 1 to 3 had trespassed into her house and abused her in filthy language and beaten her by a stick repeatedly by questioning as to how she could have told the family dispute with others, and thereby they caused simple injuries on her stomach, head and thigh and the petitioner / A1 had threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequence if she informed the said incident to anybody or gave complaint to the police against him, thereby, the petitioner / A1 had committed the offence punishable under Sections 452, 326, 323 and 506(i) I.P.C., and the Accused-2 and 3 had committed the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 323 I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, had taken cognizance of the charge sheet filed by the respondent ? Police in C.C.No.125 of 2004.
3.During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 were marked and on the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
4.After completion of trial and hearing both sides and perusing the materials placed on record, the learned Trial Judge, by Judgment, dated 03.02.2007, found the petitioner / A1 not guilty for the offence under Sections 452 and 506(i) I.P.C., and found the Accused-2 and 3 not guilty for the offence under Sections 452 and 323 I.P.C., and acquitted them from the said charges under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. However, found the petitioner / A1 guilty for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C., and sentenced him as stated above.
5.Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner / A1 had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.17 of 2007, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin and the learned Appellate Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the materials on record, by Judgment, dated 10.12.2007, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner / A1 has preferred the present revision.
6.When the matter came up for hearing on 08.12.2017, the petitioner / A1 and his wife / de facto complainant appeared in person and the de facto complainant submitted that the complaint had been preferred pursuant to a matrimonial dispute and the dispute has been settled amicably between them and they are prepared to compound the offence. In view of the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner / A1 was directed to file a petition to compound the offence along with proof of identity of the parties on or before 12.12.2017. Accordingly, petitioner has filed a miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11273 of 2017 under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
7.Today (i.e., 12.12.2017) when the matter is taken up for hearing, the parties concerned appeared in person along with their sons and submitted that the dispute between them has been settled amicably and they are living happily. The petitioner / A1 and the de facto complainant / P.W.1 have been identified by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor through the respondent police.
8.The de facto complainant / Mariammal, in her affidavit, filed in support of the petition to compound the offence, has stated that at the initiation of the well-wishers of both the parties, a compromise has been arrayed between her and her husband / A1. Further, she has stated that her husband is a very aged person and also suffering with various ailments. Therefore, she sought permission of the Court in the interest of justice to compound the offence under Section 325 I.P.C., which is a compoundable offence.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner and P.W.1 are husband and wife and that the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. is compoundable and he has no objection that the matter being compromised and compounded between the parties
10.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
11.The offence, for which the petitioner / A1 has been convicted under Section 325 I.P.C., as per the Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., is compoundable and the person, by whom the offence can be compounded in this case is P.W.1. The injured witness is none other than the wife of the petitioner / A1.
12.In Deva Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 275, the Honourable Apex Court has held that when the offence is compoundable and the parties having decided to accord a quietus to their dispute and live peacefully, they are directed to compound the offence and thereby, the accused was acquitted of the charges.
13.As per Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., the offence being compoundable, this Court is inclined to permit the parties concerned to compound the offence and to give a quietus to the litigation.
14.In view of the above, Crl.M.P.(MD) No.11273 of 2017 is ordered as prayed for and the criminal revision is allowed and the Judgment dated 10.12.2007 made in CA.No.17 of 2007, by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi, and the Judgment, dated 03.02.2007, made in C.C.No.125 of 2004, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges framed against him. The bail bond executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
To
1.The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi,
2.The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kulathur Police Station, Tuticorin District..