IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 986 of 2001(C) ------------------------------ CRA.206/1997 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.288/1991 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 --------------------- 1. RAPHEL, S/O CHACKO CHAMMASSERI MADAPLATHURUTH VADAKKEKARA 2. JOSE PAUL @ JOSSY S/O POULOSE PUTHEZHATHU GOTHURUTH MURI CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. PHILIP S/O ITTOOP AREEKKAL, ALAMTHURUTH VADAKKEKARA, NORTH PARUR (DIED) 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3. FREDDY PHILIP, S/O PHILIP AREEKAL, ALANTHURUTH VADAKKEKARA NORTH PARUR Crl.R.P.No.986/01 4. PHILIP PHILIP, S/O PHILIP AREEKAL, ALANTHURUTH VADAKKEKARA NORTH PARUR Legal heirs of first respondent impleaded vide order dated 15-10-2008 in Crl.M.A.No.9734/2008 ADV. SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM FOR ADDL.R3 & 4 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.986 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.288/1991 of Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Kochi and they were convicted under Section 465 and 467 read with Section 34 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 467 of IPC by judgment dated July 31, 1997. There were 5 accused persons . Accused No.3 was absconding. Accused 4 and 5 died. Challenging the conviction and sentence accused 1 and 2 filed Crl.Appeal No.206/1997 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The complainant filed Crl.R.P.No.44/1997 for enhancement of sentence. By a common order dated August 10, 2001, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners and directed the accused persons to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant PW1. The accused persons have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 Crl.R.P.No.986/01 Page numbers before the trial court and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this : Accused 1 to 5 joined together and created one agreement Ext.P10 dated 17-07-1978 and on the basis of which they filed O.S.No.119/1978 before the Sub Court, North Paravur against the complainant , his wife and children and that thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 465, 467 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The complaint was originally filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Aluva which was taken on file as C.C.No.283/1978 which was subsequently transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, North Paravur where it was filed as C.C.No.112/1980. When the accused persons appeared before that court they were discharged under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. by order dated 22-04-1981 against which the complainant preferred a revision Crl.R.P.No.281/1981 before this court and this court by order dated August 20, 1984 set aside that order and remanded the matter to that court for fresh disposal. Thereafter the case was transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate , Kochi where it was filed as C.C.No.110/1985 . Again after recording the evidence of complainant accused persons Crl.R.P.No.986/01 Page numbers were discharged by order dated November 28, 1986. Again on a revision by the complainant as Crl.R.P.No.235/1987 this court set aside that order by order dated February 20, 1989 and remanded the matter to trial court for fresh disposal. Subsequently the case was transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Aluva wherein it was renumbered as C.C.No.671/1990. Thereafter it was again transferred to the trial court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and renumbered as C.C.No.288/1991. After recording the evidence and hearing both sides the trial court framed a charge under Section 465, 467 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused persons to which accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty. This court by order dated August 20, 1984 directed to omit the charge under Section 471 of IPC. 4. During the pendency of the case, accused 4 and 5 died and third accused absconded. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P42 were marked on the side of the complainant. On the side of the accused DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked. After framing charge PWs 1, 2 and 5 were recalled and further cross examined. CW1 the Joint Director of Forensic Science Laboratory,Thiruvananthapuram was also examined and his report was Crl.R.P.No.986/01 Page numbers marked as Ext.C1. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioners denied the incriminating circumstances. 5. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Section 465, 467 read with Section 34 of IPC, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 467 of IPC which is confirmed in appeal. No separate sentence was imposed under Section 465 of IPC. Accused 1 and 2 have now come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. 6. When the revision petition came up for hearing, it was submitted that the matter has been settled. The original complainant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents 3 and 4. The revision petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 , the legal heirs of the complainant filed a joint petition stating that they have settled the matter and that therefore additional respondents 3 and 4 are not interested to pursue the matter further. 7. The offences under Sections 465 and 467 are noncompoundable offences. It has been held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab ( 2008(3) KLT 19 (SC) that Crl.R.P.No.986/01 Page numbers criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can be quashed by accepting the 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 reported in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( 2008(3) KLT 769(SC), the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the rival parties where accused persons were charged under Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, as in the present case also a compromise has been entered into between the rival parties and the question involved in the dispute is purely of personal nature, I feel that the proceedings can be quashed invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the result, revision petition is allowed. Prosecution initiated against the revision petitioners is quashed . Conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioners are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.986/01 Page numbers