Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Is composition of a criminal offence a unilateral act or a bilateral one ? Is it necessary to insist on the appearance of an accused person to enable the victim to compound a criminal offence ? Is a Criminal Court justified in insisting on a joint application for composition by the victim and the accused for invoking the powers under Section 320, Cr. P. C. to accept and/or accord permission for a composition ? Is there any distinction between "withdrawal" of a complaint under Section 257, Cr. P. C. and composition of an offence under Section 320, Cr. P. C? Even if there be such a distinction, is that distinction relevant in the dynamics of operation under Section 320, Cr. P. C? Does such alleged distinction justify insistence by the Court on the personal appearance of the accused to consider an application for composition ? In a case where the Court has chosen to issue non-bailable warrant against the accused, is it essential that such accused must appear personally before the, Court for any further steps-even for a further step for which personal presence of the accused is not essential ? The above questions of daily relevance, recurrence and significance before a criminal Court arise for consideration in this Cri. M.C.

2. Bereft of details, the crucial facts in the case can be summarised thus : Three persons together filed a joint complaint be-fore the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam. The allegation was that the accused, the petitioner herein, had committed the offence of cheating and breach of trust punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken by (he learned Magistrate. The petitioner received process. He along with the complainants/victims appeared before the learned Magistrate through counsel and filed an application for composition. The learned Magistrate, it is submitted, insisted on personal appearance of the petitioner and his being released on bail as a condition precedent to permit composition. The petitioner could not arrange sureties and could not appear before the learned Magistrate. Warrant of arrest has been issued against him. The petitioner wants the powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to be invoked to direct the Magistrate to consider the application for composition without insisting on his personal presence, notwithstanding the issue of a non-bailable warrant against him. It is in this fact scenario that the above questions have come up for hearing.

Those observations perfectly support the inclusions that I have reached.
22. I shall now attempt to narrate my conclusions. They are:
(1) Composition under Section 320, Cr. P. C. is a unilateral act.
(2) The victim (person shown in column 3 of Section 320(1) and 320(2)) can himself make an application for composition.
(3) It is not necessary for the Court to insist on a joint application for composition. The victim can of course make a joint application along with the accused.
(4) It is not necessary for the Court to insist on the personal appearance of the accused before Court to consider an application for composition under Section 320, Cr. P.C. (5) The mere fact that the Court has already issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused and that is pending is no reason for the Court not to proceed further with the case. All steps for which personal presence of the accused is not necessary can be continued even if the non-bailable warrant remains unexecuted and the accused has not personally appeared.

23. In the result:

(a) This Crl. M.C. is allowed.

The learned Magistrate shall forthwith proceed to consider the application for composition filed by the victim and pass appropriate orders. Personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted for consideration of such application for composition.

(c) Until a decision is taken on that application, execution of the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner shall stand suspended.