Silva And Others vs Inspector Of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station And Others

G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to record the compromise entered between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and to acquit them from conviction imposed in S.C.No.319 of 2015 dated 16.12.2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) and modified by this Court in Crl.A.(MD).No.19 of 2016 dated 23.08.2021 and thereby, sentenced the petitioners to undergo three months imprisonment under Section 323 I.P.C.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that after confirming the conviction by the Court below and after modification of the sentence by this Court in Crl.A.(MD).No.19 of 2016 dated 23.08.2021, the petitioners and the second respondent, namely, the defacto complainant had compromised the issue and filed this petition to set aside the conviction.

The second respondent / defacto complainant filed an affidavit along with the joint compromise memo, which would reveal that the second respondent does not want to pursue his complaint and she has no objection for acquitting the petitioners and she gave his consent to close the case without any coercion as compromise entered between the parties.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently held in the case of Ramgopal and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Crl.A.No.1489 of 2012, dated 29.09.2019, that the offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a Criminal Court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the Court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C. which is the exclusive domain of the Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

'12.The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very objet of the administration of criminal justice system.

13.It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others and Laxmi Narayan ((Supra).'

In view of the above judgment and on perusal of the allegations, the nature of injuries incurred, for which, the petitioners have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest. Further, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute. Further, the petitioners and the second respondent are the residents of the same Village. The quashing of these criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony and fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any ill-will and have no vengeance against each other. That apart, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain un-affected on acceptance of amicable settlement between the parties and / or resultant acquittal of the petitioners.

In view of the above, the petitioners are acquitted from the charges imposed in S.C.No.319 of 2015, dated 16.12.2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) as modified in Crl.A.(MD).No.19 of 2016 dated 23.08.2021 and thereby, sentenced the petitioners to undergo three months imprisonment under Section 323 I.P.C.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the Joint Compromise Memo shall form part and parcel of this order. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs, to the District Siddha Medical Officer, CCRI, Periyakulam, in State Bank of India, Periyakulam Branch bearing Account No.10767823177, IFSC No.SBIN000898, MICR Code No.625002601, on or before 24.02.2022 and produce the receipt before the first respondent failing which the order passed by this Court shall stand vacated automatically without any further reference to this Court. The petitioners are confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai. The Jail Authorities are directed to release the petitioners forthwith, if they are not required for any other case.