IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3632 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.60/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.497/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT ----------------------------------------- A.M.VARGHESE, S/O.MANI, ROSE COTTAGE, MANAMKARA POONJAR, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. MAMMEN K.CHERIAN, KOTTURETHU COMPLEX, MUNDANKAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR FOR R1 R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO. 3632 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th February 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur in a complaint filed by first respondent. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and the sentence before Additional Sessions court, Mavelikkara in Crl.A.60/2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. When the revision is pending, revision petitioner and first respondent settled the dispute and filed Crl.M.A.7968/2008 under Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code for permission to compound the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is compoundable under Sub Section 2 of Section 320 with the permission of the court and it is compoundable by the person who was CRRP 3632/07 2 cheated. As first respondent/complainant who was cheated filed the petition along with the revision petitioner seeking permission to compound the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, it is to be granted. 3. Though the entire dispute was settled out of the court, as offence under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code are not compoundable under Section 320 of Indian Penal Code first respondent could not seek permission under Section 320 to compound the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. It is in such circumstances, Crl.M.A.1369/2009 is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code stating that both the offences are purely personal in nature and as the disputes were settled, conviction for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 are also to be set aside. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for revision petitioner and first respondent were heard. 4. Case of first respondent, accepted by the courts below, is that towards repayment of the amount due from the revision petitioner, he issued Ext.P5 cheque as if, it is a cheque issued from the account maintained by him when in fact, it is not a cheque issued in the account maintained by the revision CRRP 3632/07 3 petitioner and revision petitioner forged the signature in Ext.P5 and with the knowledge that Ext.P5 is a forged document he used it for the purpose of cheating and as genuine and thereby committed offences under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Offence under Section 468 is forgery for the purpose of cheating and offence under Section 471 is using a forged document as genuine with the knowledge that it is a forged document. Therefore, both the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code in this case are connected with the main offence of cheating under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Case is that to cheat first respondent, revision petitioner forged Ext.P5 cheque, as if, it is a cheque issued in his account and he used it as genuine. When the offence under Section 420 which is a compoundable offence is settled and is permitted to be compounded the question is whether conviction for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 is to be maintained for the sole reason that they are not compoundable offences. 5. When the offence committed is purely of personal character and that too in the transaction between revision petitioner and first respondent and CRRP 3632/07 4 they have settled that dispute and in fact the main offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is compounded it is not in the interest of justice to maintain the conviction for the offence under Sections 468 and 471. In such a circumstances, this court is competent to exercise its extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction to set aside the conviction for the said offences. As the dispute is purely private and between revision petitioner and first respondent, Crl.M.A.7968/2008 is allowed and offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is allowed to be compounded. The offence is compounded. In view of the settlement, exercising the extra ordinary powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, conviction of revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code are set aside. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.