Sajimon vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Peermade (for short, the trial court) in C.C.No.734/2016 dated 14.6.2022 and that of the III Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha (for short, the appellate court) in Crl.A.No.71/2022 dated 26.10.2024.

The revision petitioners are the accused and the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The petitioners were prosecuted under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 read with 34 of the IPC. The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 324 of the IPC and convicted them for the said offence. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence.

The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant sworn in an affidavit stating that the matter has been settled between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent also submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that in view of the settlement, the 2nd respondent has no objection in acquitting the petitioners. This Court in Soban v. State of Kerala (2021 (3) KHC 383) has held that if requirements of Section 482 of Cr.P.C were satisfied in the sense that it was necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, criminal proceedings involving non compoundable offence could be quashed notwithstanding the fact that the order of conviction was already passed against the accused provided the offence in question does not fall in the category of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108(SC)], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan [(2019) 5 SCC 688].

In the affidavit sworn in by the defacto complainant/the 2nd respondent, it is stated that he and the accused persons are residing nearby along with family and he is maintaining peaceful and harmonious relationship with them. It is also stated that they have entered into a compromise and the 2nd respondent does not intend to continue the prosecution against the petitioners. The offence for which the petitioners were convicted does not involve offence of mental depravity or of heinous nature like rape, dacoity or murder. It does not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited in the pronouncements of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra) to be compounded exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

The dispute appears to be personal in nature and the defacto complainant is no more interested in carrying with the criminal proceedings. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, I am of the view that the compromise arrived at between the parties is to be accepted for the ends of justice. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners by the impugned judgments are hereby set aside and the petitioners are acquitted.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners 2 and 3 were taken into custody and remanded to jail. Since the conviction and sentence are hereby set aside, the Jail Superintendent concerned is directed to release petitioners 2 and 3. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the trial court forthwith. The revision petition is disposed of as above.