IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/28TH KARTHIKA, 1937 [CASE NUMBER] ( ) AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN [CASE NUMBER] of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS FAST TRACK COURT (ADHOC-1), [ENTITY] DATED 29-11-2004 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN [CASE NUMBER] of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II,PERAMBRA DATED 23-07-2001 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS 1 TO 3, 5 & 6/ ACCUSED 1 TO 3,5 & 6 1. [ENTITY], S/O. [ENTITY]. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] OF [ENTITY]. 2. [ENTITY], S/O.VERAN, [ENTITY] AMSOM OF [ENTITY]. 3. [ENTITY], S/[ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY]. 4. [ENTITY], S/[ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY]. 5. [ENTITY], S/[ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY]. BY [ENTITY] [ENTITY] RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEPPAYYUR, [ENTITY] REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 31. ADDL.R2: [ENTITY], S/O. [ENTITY], AGED 45 YEARS, [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] DISTRICT, PIN - 673 524. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN [CASE NUMBER] DTD. 19.11.2015) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. [ENTITY] ADDL.R2: [ENTITY] THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2015, ALONG WITH [CASE NUMBER], THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: acd [ENTITY], J. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 19th day of November, 2015 ORDER
Revision petitioners were accused in [CASE NUMBER] of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perambra, for having committed offence u/[SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT]. The charge against them was that on 27.6.1997 at about 7 p.m., while PW1 was proceeding through canal road, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly due to political enemity and in furtherance of their common intention, committed rioting and thereafter, assaulted with iron rod, as a result, PW1 sustained serious injuries, immediately he was removed to hospital. On the basis of information, Meppayur Police registered [CASE NUMBER] and after completing investigation, laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra.
2. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. The trial Court convicted them u/[SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] and acquitted u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Against that, they preferred [CASE NUMBER] before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-I), Kozhikode, which was dismissed by the appellate Court. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred these two revision petitions.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the dispute between the revision petitioners and the injured have been compromised due to intervention of mediators and they filed [CASE NUMBER] u/[SECTION] [ACT] I have perused the Crl.M.A., in which both parties and their counsel signed. Both parties can compound the case in the revisional stage u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') according to the settlement. When offence is compounded, it has the effect of an acquittal as per [SECTION] of the Code. They filed [CASE NUMBER] for impleading the injured as additional respondent, accordingly, the injured is impleaded as additional 2nd respondent. They also filed [CASE NUMBER].
4. The offences compoundable under the [ACT] are specified in the first two columns of [SECTION] of [ACT]. The offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] at the time of occurrence was compoundable, but after Amendment by [ACT], it is non-compoundable. The offence u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] r/[SECTION] are also non-compoundable offences. But in view of the decision of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], High Court can invoke inherent powers u/[SECTION] [ACT] to quash the criminal proceedings, when the matter is compromised by both parties, including non-compoundable offences. Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] was held as follows:-
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or F.I.R 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 [SECTION] of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no 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 proceeding or complaint of 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 regad 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. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like [ACT] or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc, or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Hence, on the basis of compromise reached between the parties, no further grievance subsists, therefore, this court permits parties to compound the case. These revision petitioners are disposed of as compromised.
In the result, the conviction u/[SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT] of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class- II, Perambra is quashed by invoking the inherent power u/[SECTION] [ACT] and the accused are acquitted and set at liberty and the revision petitions are disposed of as compromised.
[ENTITY], JUDGE.