In a criminal revision against a final report and cognizance under Section 420 IPC, the High Court declined to quash proceedings based on settlement, directing parties to the Magistrate under Section 320 CrPC for compounding and noting absence need not be insisted upon.
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
THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 127 of 2010() -----------------------------------C.C.NO.876/2004 OF JFCM COURT, THIRUVALLA
PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------
REGHUNATH, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, MADASSERIL HOUSE, NANNOOR, VALLAMKULAM, ERAVIPEROOR.
BY ADV. MR.T.P.PRADEEP
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR OFFICER, H.D.F.C.BUILDING, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-15.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
Crl.M.C.NO.127 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 14th January 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner is the accused and
second respondent the de facto complainant
in C.C.876/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed to quash the final report and the cognizance taken contending that entire disputes were settled between the parties. Affidavit of the second respondent is also filed.
the petitioner and second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
2
Crmc 127/10
Indian Penal Code is compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
When an offence is compoundable, it is not for this court to exercise the extra
ordinary inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings based on the settlement. Parties are at liberty to approach the Magistrate for permission to compound the offence as
provided under Section 320 of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
that personal presence of the accused and
respondent may be dispensed with. When the offence under Section 420 is compoundable by the person who was cheated, it is not for the
court to insist for the presence of the
accused to grant permission to compound the
Crmc 127/10 3
offence if applied for by him. It is for the Magistrate to decide whether the Magistrate is satisfied by the statement of the de facto complainant that there was a composition and there is no need to insist the personal presence of the complainant in all cases.
Petition is disposed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings in a compoundable offence under Section 482 CrPC based on a settlement.
Whether the presence of the accused and complainant is mandatory for the Magistrate to grant permission to compound a Section 420 IPC offence.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
REGHUNATH
STATE OF KERALA
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
