IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1518 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.785/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.10/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------------- SURESH, S/O. KRISHNAN, CHEMMANCHERY HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. # ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED: KESAVAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHEMMANCHERY VEETIL, SUBHASH NAGAR, OLLUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR THALUK 680 012. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 8.3.2011 IN CRL.M.A NO.1994/2011 IN CRL.R.P.NO.1518/2009. ADV. SRI.SEBIN THOMAS FOR ADDL.R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.1518 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th Day of March , 2011 ORDER The above Criminal Revision petition is preferred by the accused in C.C.No.10 of 2002 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.785 of 2005 of the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court No.1, Thrissur, challenging his conviction and sentence. The above calendar case petition was instituted on the basis of the Police report in Crime No.329/2001 of Mannuthy Police Station for the offence under Section 324 of IPC on the basis of the incident taken place at about 7.30 p.m on 3.11.2001 and the said crime was registered at the instance of the additional second respondent who is the defacto cmplainant. 2. Today by a separate order, in Crl.M.A.No.1994/2011, this Court, after having satisfied with the terms and conditions contained therein permitted the parties to compound the offence and accordingly, the composition of the offence under Section 324 is recorded. In the light of the composition of the offence for which the revision petitioner convicted, he is entitled to get an acquittal by virtue of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. Crl. R.P. No.1518 OF 2009 2 In the result, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 31.08.2005 in C.C.No.10/2002 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur and the judgment dated 17.06.2008 in Crl.Appeal No.785/2005 in the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track court-1, Thrissur and the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and he is set at liberty. The Crl.R.P is allowed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm Crl. R.P. No.1518 OF 2009 3 V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------- Crl. M.A.No. 1995 of 2011 in Crl.R.P.No.1518 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011. ORDER This is an application for compounding the offence under Section 324 of IPC for which the revision petitioner stand convicted and sentence. 2. During the pendency of the above revision petition, it is submitted that, the matter has been settled out of court between the petitioner/accused and the defacto complainant who is the additional second respondent in the above revision petition. The revision petitioner is the accused in Crime No.329 of 2001 Mannuthy Police Station under Section 324 of IPC. It is a crime registered at the instance of additional second respondent. Subsequently, the Police filed report in the above crime, based upon which C.C.No.10 of 2002 was instituted in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur, for the said offence and he is accordingly convicted. The appeal was also dismissed thus, he preferred the above revision petition. While the above revision petition is pending the defacto complainant Crl. R.P. No.1518 OF 2009 4 impleaded as additional second respondent and thereafter they preferred this compounding petition. I have gone through the compounding petition and I am satisfied with the terms and conditions contained therein and the petition is signed by both the revision petitioner as well as the additional second respondent and counter signed by their respective counsel. In the light of the above facts and circumstances involved in this case, and as I am satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compounding petition the parties are permitted to compound offence and accordingly, the composition of the offence under Section 324 of IPC is recorded. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm