IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
Johnson Stephen – Appellant
Versus
Chinchumol – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 1896 of 2023
Decided on : 25-10-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406 and 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 320, (2), (8), 161 - Quash final report - Criminal breach of trust – Offence of cheating - Accused seeks to quash final report and all further proceedings – Petitioner has failed to place any sufficient material to quash proceedings. (Para 25)
Finding of the Court :
(CW1) received amount mentioned in Annexure-A2 - Circumstances under which she resiled from composition of offences have not been placed before Court - Learned Public Prosecutor placed a report submitted by Investigating Officer stating that complainant informed that a sum more is due to her from petitioner/accused - Charge witness No.2 had mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that a sum is due to him from petitioner/accused in connection with alleged transactions leading to registration of crime - Petitioner has failed to place any sufficient material to quash proceedings in C.C. on file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class – Court find no reason to interfere with impugned order.
Result: Crl.M.C. is disposed of
ORDER :
The accused in C.C.No.755 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Perumbavoor seeks to quash the final report and all further proceedings.
2. The petitioner faces charges under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, on a false promise to arrange a job visa to Australia, collected Rs.6,10,000/-from respondent No.1, the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner obtained wrongful gain, causing wrongful loss to the victim.
3. The petitioner pleaded the following:-
Based on the first information given by the victim, Perumbavoor Police registered Crime No.967/2022. During the stage of investigation, the petitioner and the victim settled their disputes. The victim submitted a petition seeking composition of the offences along with an application seeking leave of the Court to permit her to compound the offences. The victim filed a statement before the Investigating Officer that she had settled the dispute and did not intend to prosecute the offence. The learned Magistrate sought a report from the Investigating Officer. As per Annexure-A5 dated 31.10.2022, the Investigating Officer informed the learned Magistrate that the victim received Rs.1,75,000/-as a full and final settlement.
4. The victim later submitted before the learned Magistrate that she was not pressing the application seeking composition, and the learned Magistrate dismissed the application as not pressed.
5. Notice was served on the victim. She did not turn up.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Amicus Curiae.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application seeking composition under Section 320 Cr.P.C., having been filed by the victim, cannot be withdrawn for the reason that the moment it is filed, it shall have the force of acquittal.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, contended that the filing of the application seeking composition should have the force of acquittal at the moment it is filed only in the case of offences compoundable without the leave of the Court and in case of offences where leave of the Court is required, only after granting of leave, a judicial act of deciding whether, in the interest of justice, the parties should be allowed to compound, it shall have the force of acquittal.
9. The learned Amicus curiae Shri. K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, relying on the decision in N.Raja Malla Reddy v. State of A.P. and Another [2005 KHC 2083], submitted that a petition seeking composition of the offence cannot be withdrawn in as much as it has the immediate effect of acquittal of the accused. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that unilateral withdrawal of consent by one party, especially after the other party performed his part of the terms in the agreement, cannot be permitted. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the Court ought not to have permitted the victim to withdraw the application seeking composition.
10. It is profitable to extract Section 320 of the Cr.P.C..
Offence Section of the Indian Penal Code applicable Person by whom offence may be compounded
1 2 3
XXXX
Offence Section of the Indian Penal Code applicable Person by whom offence may be compounded
1 2 3
xxxxx
Bharti v. State of Haryana (2014) 4 SCC 14
Dasan v. State of Kerala (2014) 12 SCC 666
Sudheer Kumar @ Sudheer v. Manakkandi M.K. Kunhiraman and Another 2008(1) KHC 127 .
It is trite that composition is a unilateral act. A joint application by accused and victim is not a requirement of Section 320.
The court affirmed that compromises post-conviction do not automatically quash convictions for non-compoundable offenses, but may be considered in appeals.
The main legal point established is that post-conviction compromises, if voluntary and not coerced, can justify quashing of convictions and proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to permit the compounding of non-compoundable offences in family di....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.