Offences under IPC Sections 379 and 411 can be compounded at any stage without time limits, and the High Court has inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash convictions based on compounding.

ORDER :

(K. V. Jayakumar, J.)

This Criminal Miscellaneous case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as, ‘the BNSS ’] by the accused in Crime No.604/2005.

2. The petitioner, Mubasheer, was the 4th accused in C.C.No.128/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 r/w 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Eranhikkal Mammad (3rd respondent herein), Crime No.604/2005 of Manjeri Police Station was registered against the petitioner and four others.

4. The prosecution allegation was that on 06.12.2004 accused nos.1 and 2 had committed theft of a motor cycle owned by the defacto complainant Mammad. Accused no.3 assisted the accused nos.1 and 2 in concealing the motor cycle. Further, accused nos.4 and 5 purchased the motor cycle knowing that it was a stolen property.

5. The petitioner/4th accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 411 r/w 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

6. The petitioner challenged the findings of the learned Magistrate and preferred Crl.Appeal No.281/2006 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-III), Manjeri as per judgment dated 06.11.2008, allowed the appeal in part, modified and reduced the substantive sentence imposed by the trial court from SI for one year to SI for three months.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the petitioner approached this Court and preferred Crl.R.P.No.469/2010 which was dismissed as per order dated 23.09.2016.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, due to financial constraints, the petitioner could not approach the Apex Court challenging the findings of the High Court. In the meantime, the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant (Eranjikkal Mammad) approached him and expressed his willingness to compound the offence which had occurred as early as in the year 2004. the offences alleged against the accused are compoundable only with the permission of the Court.

9. In the meanwhile, on 23.12.2024, the petitioner was arrested by the 2nd respondent and now he is undergoing imprisonment. The 3 rd respondent/defacto complainant has sworn an affidavit dated 24.12.2024 expressing his willingness to compound the offence as against the petitioner.

10. Now the petitioner approached this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS claiming the following reliefs:

(i) Direct release of the petitioner from the District Jail, Manjeri wherein he is undergoing simple imprisonment in pursuance to Annexure-III judgment in connection with C.C.No.128/2006 on the file of JFCM Court-I, Manjeri taking note of the compounding of the offence with the defacto complainant as evidenced by Annexure V affidavit sworn to by him.

And

(ii) To pass such and other orders or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

11. I have heard Adv.G.Hariharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.E.C.Bineesh, learned Public Prosecutor.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the matter is compounded between the parties, the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/4th accused is liable to be quashed by this Court invoking the powers vested on this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS . The petitioner has produced the affidavit dated 24.12.2024 sworn by the 3rd respondent/defacto complain