Allowed

Beenakumari v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/1456/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Holding that an offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable by the defacto complainant with court permission. The court allowed the application for compounding due to a settled dispute, resulting in the acquittal of the revision petitioner and the setting aside of the confirmed conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

The offence under Section 420 IPC was compounded; the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the revision petitioner was accorded acquittal.

Beenakumari Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2012/13TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1456 of 2012 (B)

¶6

CRL.APPEAL NO.141/2006/ IN CRA.141/2008 of IIND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPL. JUDGE FOR NDPS ACT CASES, THODUPUZHA AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN C.C.NO.5/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

BEENAKUMARI, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. SANOJ, RESIDING AT ARYA NIVAS, PUTHIYAKAVU KARA, UDAYAMPERUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.V.JAMES

¶10

SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL SRI.O.S.JAFARKHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1.THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. Sr. LILLY, MOTHER SUPERIOR, S.H. CONVENT, MUTHALAKODAM KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.P. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI. AJEESH S. BRITE

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶17

ON 04-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶19

=========================== CRL. R.P. NO. 1456/2012

¶20

=========================== Dated this the 4^th day of July 2012

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The revision petitioner in R.P.1456 of 2012 was the accused in C.C.No. 5/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. This revision petition is filed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 141/2008 on the file of the Court of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Act cases, Thodupuzha. The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. She was found guilty, convicted and sentenced thereunder by the trial court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 141/2008 was dismissed, the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified. It is in the said circumstances, this revision petition has been filed.

¶23

Considering the contentions on merits is uncalled for in

¶24

this case in view of the subsequent developments. In terms of the

¶25

#2#

¶26

CRL. R.P. NO. 1456/2012

¶27

provisions under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable by the person who was cheated, with the permission of the court. In this case it is submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant have settled the dispute that led to the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner herein. The said compromise has been duly verified and brought on record by filing Criminal M.A. No. 4971/2012. Adv. Sri. Ajeesh. S. Brite submitted that he has instructions to enter appearance on behalf of the defacto complainant and to endorse the statements made in the joint petition viz; Criminal M.A. No. 4971/2012. In the circumstances, the defacto complainant, sister Lilly, is impleaded suo moto as the additional 2^nd respondent and the appearance of the learned counsel Ajeesh. S. Brite is also noted. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, the defacto complainant submitted that the complainant has volunteered to compound the offence under Section 420 of the IPC against the revision petitioner.

¶28

#3#

¶29

CRL. R.P. NO. 1456/2012

¶30

In the said circumstances, taking note of the fact that the

¶31

parties have compromised the issue involved in the case amicably and that no rancour left in their hearts, I am inclined to allow the said application for compounding the offence under Section 420 IPC. Accordingly, the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is compounded against the revision petitioner. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner in C.C. No. 5/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha that was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 141/2008 of the Court of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Act cases, Thodupuzha are set aside. In terms of sub section 8 of Section 320 Cr.P.C, the composition of the offence will have the effect of acquittal of the revision petitioner with the 2^nd respondent with whom the offence

¶32

was compounded. The bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

¶35

/True Copy/

¶36

kvr/

¶37

P.A. to Judge

Beenakumari v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beenakumari v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Raveendranath Vs K.G.Mohanlal

Y/S.Konnathady Service Co.Op.Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Sivaraman Vs Aniamma Varghese

Mohanan M.A. Vs Sathyadeepam Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.

R.Balachandran Vs M.S.Jaya

Payapura Muhammed Haneef Vs N.K.Abdulrahiman