IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 476 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRA.243/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.352/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 & 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. VISWANATHAN, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, RAJENDRA VILASOM, PORUVAZHI VADAKKU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, RAJENDRA VILASOM, PORUVAZHI VADAKKU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SANTHOSH, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, RAJENDRA VILASOM, PORUVAZHI VADAKKU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SARADA, D/O SIVANKUTTY, RAJENDRA VILASOM, PORUVAZHI VADAKKU MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS CRL.R.P.No.476/2007 2 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHAMMA BALAN, W/O BALAN, NEDUMURUPPEL VEEDU, KOTTAYAM MURI L& VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERI TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.LOVEJITH K.ANAND FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.476 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16 th day of February, 2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec.401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C. No. 352 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them concurrently by the courts below for the aforesaid offence. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners obtained 10 cents of land and made an additional demand of Rs.One lakh for the petitioner marrying the niece of the de facto complainant. They have thereby committed the aforementioned offence. 3. Pending this revision the revision petitioners and the 1st respondent/complainant have settled the matter and the petitioners are alleged to have disgorged whatever they had received in consideration of the marriage. They have also filed Crl.M.A.No.541/2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C requesting to Crl.R.P.No.476 of 2007 2 compound the offence and acquitting the petitioners . 4. Since the matter was a private dispute between the accused persons and the de facto complainant, applying the ratio in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(4) SCC 582), the offence is permitted to be compounded and it will have the effect of acquitting the revision petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the result, this Revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 16 th day of February, 2009 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj