Compromise can override non-compoundable offences if the nature of the dispute is personal, allowing for judicial intervention in the interests of justice.

O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 298 of

1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam and the appellant in Crl.A.No. 154 of 2000 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court No.I, Thrissur.

2. The accused was convicted under section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the learned Magistrate by judgment dated March 18, 2000, which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated May 17, 2002. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. 3. When the revision petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner CRRP 1112/2002 2 submitted that the matter has been settled between the revision petitioner/accused and the de-facto complainant (PW1). He filed a petition to implead the de-facto complainant as the 2nd respondent in this revision, which was allowed by this Court on June 8, 2011. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant filed an affidavit stating that he has settled the matter with the revision petitioner/accused. The statement is recorded.

4. The offence punishable under section 326 IPC is non-compoundable. It has been held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab ( 2008(3) KLT 19 (SC)) that criminal proceedings involving non- compoundable offences can be quashed by accepting the terms of compromise reached between the rival parties, if the question involved in such disputes is purely of a personal nature. In a subsequent decision in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( 2008(3) KLT 769(SC)) the Apex Court quashed the proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the rival parties CRRP 1112/2002 3 where accused persons were charged under Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. This court had occasion to consider the above aspect in Baiju V. S.I. of Police ( 2006(3) KLT 49) and Ettoop v. Kunhikrishnan (2005(2)KLT 429) and held that even in non-compoundable offences if the parties settle the disputes, the proceedings can be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interests of justice.

6. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, in the present case also a compromise has been arrived at between the rival parties and the question involved in the dispute is purely of personal nature. That being so, revision petition has to be allowed and the conviction rendered and sentence passed against the revision petitioner under section 326 IPC has to be set aside and the entire proceedings have to be quashed.

7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction rendered and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the trial court, which were confirmed CRRP 1112/2002 4 in appeal by the lower appellate court, are set aside. The entire proceedings against the revision petitioner are quashed. The revision petitioner is discharged. His bail bonds are cancelled.

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE CRRP 1112/2002 5 CRRP 1112/2002 6 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.

=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~

Crl.R.P. No. 1112 of 2002 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~

O R D E R

16-1-2012