Disposed

Aswan Singh, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC18 Nov 2021CRL OP/12902/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the apprehension of the Appellate Court regarding the maintainability of a compromise petition after conviction but before sentencing was unwarranted. It relied on the Apex Court view that a judgment is incomplete until sentencing and allowed the trial court to entertain the petition to compound the offence.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to accused to appear before XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai on 25.11.2021 to file a petition for compounding offence.

Aswan Singh, Vs the State Rep by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.12902 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.8404 of 2017

¶6

1.Aswan Singh

¶7

2.Oshmand Sushanth D'Cruz

¶8

3.Victor Suneeth D'Cruz

¶9

... Petitioners/Accused

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State rep.by Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station Chennai

¶12

Crime No.894 of 2013

¶13

...Respondents/Complainant

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.A.No.100 of 2016 on the file of the 19^th Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vijayakumar

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.A.No.100 of 2016 on the file of the XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶18

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the Trial Court did not accept the compromise petition. It is also to be noted that originally the charge sheet has been filed against the accused for causing grievous hurt for the offences under Section 294(b), 506(i), 325 r/w 34 IPC. However, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused after full trial. The same was challenged before the Sessions Court by

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

way of two appeals viz., one by State and another by the Defacto Complainant. Both appeals were heard and the Appellate Court has found the accused guilty. The matter was posted for hearing for sentence. In the meanwhile, the accused and the defacto complainant entered into compromise and sought permission of the Appellate Court to compound the offence. The learned Appellate Judge raised the question as to the maintainability of the application since he has found the accused guilty for the offence, against which, the present petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no embargo in law to invoke the provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

This Court has perused the entire materials available on record. Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C makes it clear that when appeal is pending, without permission of such Court, no compromise is permitted. The apprehension of the Appellate Court was that since it has found the accused guilty, when the matter is pending only for passing the sentence, the compromise petition filed to compound offence is not maintainable.

¶23

It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (1995) 2 Supreme court cases 513 in the case of “Rama Narang Vs Ramesh Narang, held that under the Criminal Procedure Code, there are two stages in a criminal trial before a Sessions Court, the stage up to the recording of a conviction and the stage post-conviction up to the imposition of sentence. After the conviction is recorded, Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. inter alia provides that the Judge shall hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass sentence on him according to law. After the court records a conviction, the accused has to be heard on the question of sentence and it is only after the sentence is awarded that the judgment becomes complete and can be appealed against under section 374 of the Code.

¶24

The above judgment makes it clear that only after sentence is awarded to the convicted person, the judgment will be complete. Therefore, apprehension of the Appellate Court, as to maintainability of petition to compound the offence is unwarranted as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial court can very well entertain the compromise petition. Though, this Court would have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings based on the compromise by taking note of the relation, but the identity of the parties to enter compromise has to be established only by the Court below.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

In such view of the matter, the accused are directed to appear before XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai on 25.11.2021 and file a petition for compounding offence since the offence under Section 325 of Cr.P.C. is compoundable as per Section 2 of Cr.P.C. with the permission of the Court, the Appellate Court can entertain the same and pass orders on merits.

¶27

8.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

msv

¶33

¶34

The XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai

¶35

The Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station

¶36

Chennai

¶37

The Public Prosecutor

¶38

High Court, Madras.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.59271

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.12902 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.8404 of 2017

¶41

GPL(CO) CT 03/12/2021

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Aswan Singh, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aswan Singh, v. the State Rep by Its

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

P.Guru Arulselvam, Vs R.Karthick

K. Krishna Perumal, 61 Yrs, Vs M/S. Suntex Proceesing Mills

M/S.Suprabhat Agro Food Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Manojbhai Patel, M/A.47 Yrs Vs M/S.Monotech Systesm Ltd.

B.Dayaalan (Aged About 64 Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

P.Moorthy @ Meignanamoorthy, Vs the Inspector of Police