Revision petitioners, convicted of forgery offences, challenged their conviction. The High Court allowed the revision, quashed the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and acquitted the accused after they established a compromise regarding a purely personal dispute.
Revision petition allowed; prosecution quashed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted.
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 P.Q.BARKATH ALI
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 986 of 2001(C)
-----------------------------CRA.206/1997 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.288/1991 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI
REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2
2. JOSE PAUL @ JOSSY S/O POULOSE PUTHEZHATHU GOTHURUTH MURI CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE
BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SMT.P.MAYA
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT
2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS
3. FREDDY PHILIP, S/O PHILIP AREEKAL, ALANTHURUTH VADAKKEKARA NORTH PARUR
Crl.R.P.No.986/01
4. PHILIP PHILIP, S/O PHILIP AREEKAL, ALANTHURUTH VADAKKEKARA NORTH PARUR
Legal heirs of first respondent impleaded vide order dated 15-10-2008 in Crl.M.A.No.9734/2008
ADV. SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM FOR ADDL.R3 & 4
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
Crl.R.P.No.986 OF 2001
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009
ORDER
Revision petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.288/1991 of Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Kochi and they were convicted under Section 465 and 467 read with Section 34 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 467 of IPC by judgment dated July 31, 1997. There were 5 accused persons . Accused No.3 was absconding. Accused 4 and 5 died. Challenging the conviction and sentence accused 1 and 2 filed Crl.Appeal No.206/1997 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.44/1997 for enhancement of sentence. By a common order dated August 10, 2001, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners and directed the accused persons to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant PW1. The accused persons have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence.
Crl.R.P.No.986/01
Page numbers
before the trial court and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this :
Accused 1 to 5 joined together and created one agreement Ext.P10 dated 17-07-1978 and on the basis of which they filed O.S.No.119/1978 before the Sub Court, North Paravur against the complainant , his wife and children and that thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 465, 467 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Crl.R.P.No.986/01
Page numbers
were discharged by order dated November 28, 1986. Again on a revision by the complainant as Crl.R.P.No.235/1987 this court set aside that order by order dated February 20, 1989 and remanded the matter to trial court for fresh disposal. Subsequently the case was transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Aluva wherein it was renumbered as C.C.No.671/1990. Thereafter it was again transferred to the trial court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and renumbered as C.C.No.288/1991. After recording the evidence and hearing both sides the trial court framed a charge under Section 465, 467 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused persons to which accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty. This court by order dated August 20, 1984 directed to omit the charge under Section 471 of IPC.
Crl.R.P.No.986/01
Page numbers
marked as Ext.C1. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioners denied the incriminating circumstances.
revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Section 465, 467 read with Section 34 of IPC, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 467 of IPC which is confirmed in appeal. No separate sentence was imposed under Section 465 of IPC. Accused 1 and 2 have now come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence.
the complainant filed a joint petition stating that they have settled the matter and that therefore additional respondents 3 and 4 are not interested to pursue the matter further.
Crl.R.P.No.986/01
Page numbers
criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can be quashed by accepting the terms of compromise reached between the rival parties , if the question involved in such disputes is purely of a personal nature. In a subsequent decision reported in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( 2008(3) KLT 769(SC), the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the rival parties where accused persons were charged under Prevention of Corruption Act.
In the result, revision petition is allowed. Prosecution initiated against the revision petitioners is quashed . Conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioners are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE
sv.
Crl.R.P.No.986/01
Page numbers
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under non-compoundable offences can be quashed based on a compromise in purely personal nature disputes.
Whether the High Court has the power to quash conviction and sentence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following a settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶45
( 2008(3) KLT 19 (SC))
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of InvestigationRelied on¶46
( 2008(3) KLT 769(SC))
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RAPHEL S/O CHACKO CHAMMASSERI MADAPLATHURUTH VADAKKEKARA
JOSE PAUL @ JOSSY S/O POULOSE PUTHEZHATHU GOTHURUTH MURI CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE
STATE OF KERALA
FREDDY PHILIP
PHILIP PHILIP
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Parties & counsel
