IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI CRL.R.C.No.733 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.6863 of 2024 S.Mabu ... Petitioner Vs.

The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Sivakanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

(Crime No.244 of 2011) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track), Kancheepuram, dated 17.07.2019 modifying the conviction imposed on the judgment dated 27.04.2018 made in S.C.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 17.07.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track), Kancheepuram modifying the conviction order 27.04.2018 made in S.C.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on the complaint of the de facto complainant, FIR was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.244 of 2011 which was taken on file in S.C.No.21 of 2012 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram for the offences under Sections 341, 307 r/w 34 of IPC in which the petitioner was shown as A2. The trial Court by judgment dated 27.04.2018 convicted the petitioner to undergo rigrous imprisonment for the period of three years with a fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. As against which, the petitioner filed criminal appeal in C.A.No.5 of 2018 before the learned Additional District Court (Fast Track), Kancheepuram and the said appeal was partly allowed by judgment dated 17.07.2019 modifying the imprisonment by reducing the sentence from three years to two years and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferreed the above revision.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, a Joint Memo of Compromise dated 22.04.2024 has been filed before this Court, which has been duly signed by the petitioner, de facto complainant and victim. The parties appeared before this Court and they are identified by the Law Enforcing Agency. The same is hereby recorded.

4. The issue of compounding of an offence under Section 307 of IPC was dealt with by the Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another [2014 (6) SCC 466], wherein, the Apex Court after elaborate discussion by referring to various decision on the issue, culled out the principles to be followed which compounding an offence under Section 307 of IPC and the same is quoted hereunder:-

"8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter. 9. At the same time, one has to