Appealing against conviction and sentence in Sessions Court for offences under IPC sections 452, 354, and 506(ii). Petitioner sought quashing of appeal based on settlement. Court rejected quashing of appeal pending before Sessions Court.
Quashing of Criminal Appeal No.519/2007 was declined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 2354 of 2009(B)
------------------------CCA.544/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
---------------------------------
SAINUDHEEN,S/O.ALIYAR, KODOPPILLY HOUSE, KUNJUNNIKKARA, KADUGALLOR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS
----------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
2. FATHIMA,W/O.YUSAPH,
AGED 47 YEARS, AKATHOOT HOUSE, CHERUVELIL, KUNJUNNI KARA, KADUGALLOR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.E.ISMAIL
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
app/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
==================
Crl.M.C. No.2354 of 2009.
==================
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009.
O R D E R
Petitioner is the accused in C.C.544/2002. Under Annexure A1 judgment dated 20.7.2007, petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences under section 452, 354 and 506(ii) of IPC. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to dispose the Criminal Appeal 519/2007 pending before Sessions Court, Ernakulam filed challenging Annexure A1 judgment, in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Offences under sections 452 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code are not compoundable. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for second respondent and Public Prosecutor were heard. The learned counsel argued that though offences are not compoundable, in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and second respondent, to secure justice, the case is to be quashed. Annexure A2 affidavit of second respondent to establish settlement is also pressed in the service.
2
Crl.M.C. No.2354 of 2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
app/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal appeal pending after conviction can be quashed in the High Court based on a settlement between parties when the offences are non-compoundable.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to dispose of a pending Sessions Court appeal via a settlement despite contrary precedents.
SAINUDHEEN
STATE OF KERALA
FATHIMA
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
