Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HARILAL, J
BHASKARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1659/2013
Compounding - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code Section 325, Code of Criminal Procedure Section 320 - The court accepted the compounding of an offence and acquitted the accused, interpreting Section 320 concerning the nature of offences eligible for compounding, leading to the ruling that the earlier convictions were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced by the trial court. The conviction was confirmed by the appellate court. However, both parties later settled the matter and filed a petition to compound the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had settled the dispute out of court and that the 2nd respondent was not interested in prosecuting the case, thus allowing the compounding of the offence.
Issues: Whether the parties could compound the offence after conviction under Section 326 IPC as per the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the matter was settled out of court and both parties agreed to compound the offence, the provisions allowing for compounding were applicable, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was disposed of, and the convictions were set aside, resulting in acquittal.
ORDER
During the pendency of this revision filed against the conviction and sentence of the Revision Petitioner under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code , the parties have settled the matter and have filed Crl.M.A. No.6750/2013 to the effect that the matter has been compounded. The said petition has been signed by the Revision Petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent and their respective counsel. In the light of this, Crl.R.P. is disposed of and the judgments under appeal are set aside and the composition of the offence is recorded.
2. It is needless to mention that this composition shall have the effect of acquittal of the Revision Petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC within the meaning of Section
320(8) Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge K. HARILAL,J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.A.No. 6750 of 2013 in Crl.R.P.No. 1659 of 2013 --------------------------------------
ORDER
The Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.482/09 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimaly, as well as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.8/13 on the files of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-I), Thodupuzha. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under IPC and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `10,000/- for the offence under Sec.326 . In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Though the Revision Petitioner had preferred an appeal, the Appellate Court also confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Fine amount, if realised, shall be given to the complainant as compensation.
2. Now the Revision Petitioner along with the 2nd respondent filed this Crl.M.A. under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. In the petition, it is specifically stated that the subject matter of the above Revision Petition has been settled between the Revision Petitioner and the 2nd respondent out of court and now the 2nd respondent is not desirous of prosecuting the case against the Revision Petitioner. They jointly sought for permission of the Court for compounding the offence.
As I am satisfied with the averments in the petition signed by both the parties and countersigned by the respective counsel appearing for the parties, permission is granted to compound the offence and composition is recorded.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
