1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.238 of 2011 J.Kasinathan ... Petitioner/A.2 Vs. The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District. ... Respondent/Respondent Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.212 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, dated 03.11.2010 and expunge the remark of acquittal passed under benefit of doubt and modify it as Honourary acquittal. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) * * * * * ORDER The revision petitioner is arrayed as A.2 in C.C.No.212 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti and the said case was compounded between the defacto complainant and the accused who are two in number and consequently, the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, has passed an order under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C acquitting the accused. 2. The revision petitioner/A.2 apprehending that the said order may act as a bar for his recruitment to the post of Grade II Police Constable conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, has approached this Court by way of this revision. 3. The petitioner is a student of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar College which is an aided College at Usilampatti and with regard to the delayed disbursement of the Collegeship, there was a wordy altercation between the defacto complainant who was employed as a Clerk in the said College and the accused. 4. The case of the prosecution is that A.1 said to have attacked the defacto complainant with iron rod and A.2 attacked him by using his hands and therefore, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.130 of 2009 was registered by the Sub https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station for the commission of the offences under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. 5. The case after investigation has culminated in a positive final report against the accused. It was taken on file by the said Court. During the pendency of the case, a compromise has been reached between the defacto complainant and the accused and accordingly, a petition for compounding the offences was filed and the trial Court taking into consideration the petition, has released the accused under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. 6. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A.2 would submit that even though the trial Court has released the accused in terms of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C, it has not specifically stated that the revision petitioner/A.2 has been acquitted and therefore, he is under a genuine apprehension that his candidature for selection of the post of Grade II Police Constable, is likely to be rejected. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders of acquitting the accused. 7. On the said submission, this Court heard the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent also. 8. Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. speaks about the compounding the offence and as per Section 320(8) Cr.P.C, the composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. Admittedly, the offence for which the revision petitioner/A.2 was charged i.e under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C are compoundable offences and in fact, the compromise has been reached and a petition for compounding the offence has also been filed which was taken on file by the trial Court and it was also recorded. 9. Once the trial Court has accepted the petition for compounding the offence and passed an order under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C, it will have the effect of an order of acquittal in terms of the above said provision. However, the trial Court in the impugned order has merely stated that the accused has been released, but it has not been specifically stated that they were acquitted. 10. This Court taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A.2 and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and on a perusal of the materials available on record, is of the view that since the offences for which the petitioner/A.2 was charged, had been compounded, he is necessarily to be acquitted in terms of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 03.11.2010 made in C.C.No.212 of 2009 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, releasing the revision petitioner/A.2, is modified to one of acquittal in terms of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To: 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti. 2.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy To: The Section Officer, Criminal Section, (Records) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Chellapandian, Advocate, SR No.14936 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.238 of 2011 25.04.2011 rsb RJ/26.4.11 (IT) 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/