Allowed

Lalu v. Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station

Kerala HC14 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/816/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against conviction and sentence for grievous hurt was allowed. The court granted permission to compound offences under compoundable sections due to settlement between parties and acquitted the accused under those charges. Conviction and sentence for the non-compoundable charge of grievous hurt were quashed, acquitting the accused on that count as well.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition allowed. Offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC compounded and accused acquitted under Section 320(8) CrPC. Conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC quashed and accused

Lalu Vs Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/23RD PHALGUNA 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 816 of 2003 ( )

¶6

Crl.Appeal 426/2000 of III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), THRISSUR CC 475/1997 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

LALU, S/O.APPU KAREEPADATH HOUSE PALLIPURAM, VALAPPADU THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.U.NAZAR

¶10

SRI.P.M.MUHAMMED RAHAZ SRI.K.A.RASHEED SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VALAPPADU POLICE STATION REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶13

ADDL.R2. JYOTHI BABU, S/O.BALAN AGED 53 YEARS MOONAMPARAMBIL HOUSE VALAPPAD, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.10.3.2014 IN CRL.M.A.1579/14 IN CRL.R.P.816/2003.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.H.ANSIL BY SMT.P.MAYA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.816 of 2003

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of March 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the first accused in C.C. No.475 of 1997 on the file Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur.

¶23

The prosecution case is briefly as follows. On 7.5.1997, accused Nos.1 and 2 wrongfully restrained PW1 and

¶24

first accused kicked him and second accused beat him with a stick and PW1 sustained fracture on the bone of his leg. Since

¶25

the second accused was absconding, his case was split up and re-filed as C.C. No.613 of 2000. In C.C. No.475 of 1997, the trial court convicted first accused under Sections 326, 341 and

¶26

Crl.R.P. No.816 of 2003

¶27

:2:

¶28

323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a compensation of `3,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 326 of the IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 341 and 323 of the IPC. Criminal Appeal No.426 of 2000 filed before the III Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Thrissur was dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellant/ first accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶29

During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, PW1/ de facto complainant was impleaded as additional second respondent. The revision petitioner /accused and additional second respondent/ de facto complainant filed Crl.M.A. No.1895 of 2014 under Sections 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to compound the offence. The offence

¶30

Crl.R.P. No.816 of 2003

¶31

:3:

¶32

under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC is compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. Since the matter is settled between the parties, permission is granted to compound the offence under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC.

¶33

In the decision reported in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of

¶34

Punjab ([2008(3) KLT 19 (Supreme Court)], it was held :

¶35

“Criminal proceedings involving noncompoundable 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.”

¶36

In the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (Supreme Court)], it was held thus :

¶37

“the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no

¶38

Crl.R.P. No.816 of 2003

¶39

:4:

¶40

statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceedings or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.”

¶41

In the present case, first accused did not beat PW1 with

¶42

any stick. The split-up case against second accused was compromised and second accused was acquitted. Since the matter is settled between the parties, I am of the view that in the interest of justice conviction and sentence of the first accused

¶43

Crl.R.P. No.816 of 2003

¶44

:5:

¶45

under Section 326 of the IPC has to be quashed. Therefore, Crl.M.Appln. No.1895 of 2014 is allowed.

¶46

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The offence of first accused in C.C. No.475 of 1997 on the file Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur under sections 323 and 341 of the IPC is compounded and the conviction and sentence is set aside and he is acquitted under section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. The conviction and sentence of first accused under section 326 of the IPC is quashed and he is acquitted.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶49

dl/

¶50

// TRUE COPY //

Lalu v. Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalu v. Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose @ Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Adv.Anandan Pillai Vs State of Kerla

Pauly and Another Vs State of Kerala

K.Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Susan George Vs State of Kerala

Subramanyan Vs O.T.Philip