IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 393 of 2001 ----------------------------- CC.393/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, PERAMBRA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------------- SREEDHARAN NAIR, S/O GOVINDAN NAIR, SREEJA NIVAS, NOCHAD VILLAGE, KALPATHUR P.O., MEPPAYYUR-673 524 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. SUNIL PRASAD, S/O RAVUNNI NAIR, KALLADAPAYIL VEEDU, MEPPAYUR AMSOM, CHANGARAMVELLI DESOM. 2. AJEESH, S/O ASHOKAN, SUDHALAYAM VEEDU, ACHURANAM VILLAGE, POZHUTHANA, WAYANAD. 3. SUDHEESH, S/O RAVEENDRAN, KANHIRAMULLA PARAMBIL, MEPPAYUR AMSOM, CHANGARAMVELLI DESOM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, EKM. ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 TO R3 SMT.S.LAKSHMY FOR R1 TO R3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 393 of 2001 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.1782/2001 DISMISSED 10.2.2009 SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.393/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 ORDER The defacto complainant in C.C.No.393/99 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perambra, is the petitioner in this Revision petition. Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 14.2.1999 at about 11.00 a.m, when CW1, the defacto complainant was waiting for his bus in Perambra- Meppayur public road, the accused had in furtherance of their common intention, caused hurt on him; A2 had wrongfully restrained him and A1 beat him with an iron rod on his head. He sustained injuries thereby and the accused have, committed the offence as aforementioned. 3. Prosecution examined PWs1 to 10, Ext.P4 is the FIR in crime No.44/99 of Perambra police station registered on 15.2.1999. Crl.R.P.393/2001 2 4. It came out in evidence that a case has been registered against the defacto complainant in this case, as evidenced by FIR in crime No.44/99 of the same police station and the calender case is registered against him which is pending trial as C.C.No.237/99 of the same Court. Defence taken by the accused was that A1 has a property near to the scene of occurrence and that he had sent persons there for plucking coconuts, that the said persons were obstructed by the defacto complainant and his wife, that A1 had gone to the spot and a scuffle took place between the defacto complainant and A1, and A1 sustained injuries thereby. A crime was registered against the defacto complainant as aforementioned. He is facing trial for the same transaction that took place on 14.2.1999. 5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the defence seems to be more probable and gives a better picture of the incident which took place on 14.2.1999. It was also found by the trial Court that injuries of A1 Crl.R.P.393/2001 3 were not clearly proved by the prosecution. The Court below therefore, proceeded to acquit the accused. 6. I heard learned counsel on both sides. 7. Counsel on both sides submit that taking note of the fact that the incident took place more than ten years ago and since essentially the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature, there is every possibility of the parties deciding to compound the offence, since the offences are compoundable. 8. I also take note of the fact that there is a counter case as C.C.No.237/99 arising from the same transaction. As noted above, defence taken by the accused in the present case is that it was the defacto complainant and his wife who obstructed plucking of coconuts from the property of A1 and what took place was a scuffle between PW1 and A1 and that it is A1 who sustained injuries as such. It is therefore, clear that it would not only have been appropriate but it was also necessary that the case and the counter case were Crl.R.P.393/2001 4 tried together. That was not done. This, in my view, resulted in injustice. 9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and C.C.No.393/99 is remanded back to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perambra, to be tried along with C.C.No.237/99. I make it clear that I have interfered with the order of acquittal only on account of the pendency of C.C.No.237/99 and taking note of the submissions of both sides that there is an imminent possibility of the parties moving the Court below for compounding the offence. In the circumstances of the case, taking note of the fact that one of the parties is employed abroad, the Court below shall entertain the application for compounding the offence, even if it is presented through a counsel. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs