IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1475 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.14/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.629/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MATHEW @ KUNJUMON S/O. PETER, MATTATHIL HOUSE, VANDAMPATHAL, ERUMELY NORTH, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS SMT.G.GIGIMOL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.R.P.No.1475 of 2002 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.629/1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kanjirappally and appellant in Crl. Appeal No.14/1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam. He was convicted under section 498A IPC by the trial court and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months by the trial court by judgment dated December 29, 1998, which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court by judgment dated September 4, 2002. The accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution, as shaped in evidence before the trial court, in brief, is this:- The accused married PW4 about 11 years ago. While they were living as husband and wife, the accused subjected PW4 to physical and mental cruelty and ill-treated her. On April 13, 1996 at about 3 p.m. the accused beat PW4 with a stick, causing injuries to her, took her to her father's house and left her CRRP 1475/2002 2 there. Thus the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 498A IPC. 3. PW6, father of PW4, took her to the hospital. PW7 doctor examined her and issued wound certificate Ext.P2. On receiving information from the hospital, PW9 Head Constable attached to the Mundayakayam Police Station went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW4, Ext.P1, and registered the case. PW10 the Circle Inspector of Police, Kanjirappally conducted the investigation and laid the charge before the trial court. 4. The accused on appearance before the trial court, pleaded not guilty to a charge under section 498A IPC. PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the entire incident and submitted that PW4 was a mental patient. DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ext.D1 and D2 were examined on his side. The trial court, on an appreciation of evidence, found that the accused has committed an offence CRRP 1475/2002 3 punishable under section 498A IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid. On appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed his conviction and sentence. Now the accused person has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 5. When the revision petition came up for hearing today, the counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled between the revision petitioner/accused and PW4 de facto complainant. PW4 de facto complainant has also filed a petition Crl.M.Appln.No.6342 of 2011 stating that the matter has been settled. They have produced original of the agreement entered into between the revision petitioner/accused and PW4/de facto complainant. 6. The offence punishable under section 498A IPC is non-compoundable. It has been held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab ( 2008(3) KLT 19 (SC)) that criminal proceedings involving non- compoundable offences can be quashed by accepting the CRRP 1475/2002 4 terms of compromise reached between the rival parties, if the question involved in such disputes is purely of a personal nature. In a subsequent decision in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( 2008(3) KLT 769(SC)) the Apex Court quashed the proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the rival parties where accused persons were charged under Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. This court had occasion to consider the above aspect in Baiju v.S.I.of Police ( 2006(3) KLT 49) and Ettoop v. Kunhikrishnan (2005(2)KLT 429) and held that even in non-compoundable offences if the parties settle the disputes, the proceedings can be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interests of justice. 8. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, in the present case also a compromise has been arrived at between the rival parties and the question involved in the dispute is purely of personal nature. That being so, revision petition has to be allowed and the CRRP 1475/2002 5 conviction rendered and sentence passed against the revision petitioner under section 498A IPC has to the set aside and revision petitioner has to be discharged. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction rendered and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the trial court, which were confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court, are set aside and the revision petitioner is discharged. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q.BARKATHALI, JUDGE mn CRRP 1475/2002 6 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Crl.A.No. 1475/2002 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ JUDGMENT 15 th day of July, 2011