Allowed

Ameen.v.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1509/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition and a motion to compound the offence. Despite Section 324 IPC becoming non-compoundable in 2009, the court held that the earlier offence remained compoundable. Consequently, permission was granted to compound the offence, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to compound the offence; composition recorded with the effect of acquittal.

Ameen.v.P. Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1509 of 2014

¶6

JUDGMENT DATED 30-06-2014 IN CRL.A 91/2004 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL FOR MARADU CASES),KOZHIKODE SC 1157/2006 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA DATED 12-02-2014 CRIME NO. 202/2006 OF EDACHERRY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3:

¶8

1. AMEEN V.P., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O USMAN, VALIYAPARAMBU HOUSE, AZHIYUR AMSOM, CHOMBALA, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

2. SAJEEVAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O SREEDHARAN, THAYYILKANDI HOUSE, AZHIYUR AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

¶11

SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & FORMAL PARTY:

¶13

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

¶14

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, EDACHERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶15

ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED

¶16

3. MUBAS K.P., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA M.P., AZHIYOOR, VADAKARA.

¶17

ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.13.10.2016 IN CRL.RP.1509/2014.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.PRASAD R3 BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

msv/

¶21

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶22

=======================================

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1509 of 2014

¶24

======================================= Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2016

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in

¶27

S.C.No.1157 of 2006 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Vadakara. The trial court convicted the revision petitioners under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them thereunder. In the appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence.

¶28

Crl.M.A.No.6260 of 2016 signed by the petitioners and PW1, who is the injured in this case, has been filed with the signature of the learned Advocates concerned, praying for granting permission to compound the offence. Crl.M.A.6261 of 2016 has been jointly filed by the parties praying for recording the composition. The offence under Section 341 is compoundable even now. The offence under Section 324 IPC was made non-compoundable by Act 25 of 2005. The Act 25 of 2005 came into force in Kerala with effect from 31.12.2009. The offence in this case was committed on 02.07.2006,

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.1509 of 2014 2

¶30

which was prior to the coming into force of Act 25 of 2005 in Kerala. Therefore, there is no hurdle in granting permission to compound the offence under Section 324 IPC.

¶31

Having heard the Bar, I am satisfied that the above applications have been filed by the parties voluntarily as the dispute

¶32

has been settled between the parties out of Court. Since the matter has been settled by the parties, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to grant permission to compound the offence. Accordingly, permission stands granted and composition stands recorded, which is having the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of the Code.

¶33

In the result, this application stands allowed, acquitting the revision petitioners under Section 320(8) of the Code.

¶34

Needless to state that if the revision petitioners had

¶35

deposited any amount before the trial court in connection with this case, the revision petitioners will be entitled to reimbursement of the same from the trial court.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶38

rkj

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

P.A. TO JUDGE

Ameen.v.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameen.v.P. v. 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

Mansoor Abdullah Vs the State of Kerala

Rafi Vs State of Kerala

Sabu C. Anto Vs State of Kerala

Chandramohanan Vs P.G.Ramachandran Nair and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sreekanth Vs State of Kerala