Revision petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.48 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram. They were tried and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”).
2. Gist of allegations is that on 18.02.1996 at about 1.30 hours at night, due to previous enmity towards PW2, the revision petitioners/accused, in furtherance of their common intention of causing hurt to him, attacked PW3 by beating with an iron rod. Thereafter at 2.00 a.m., the revision petitioners criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the house of PW2 and caused hurt to him by attacking with an iron rod and pelting stones.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Heard the learned counsel for the injured witnesses.
4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, it is seen that both the courts convicted the revision petitioners for the above said offences. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that there are only two injured witnesses (PWs 2 and 3) and PW3 is the son of PW2. It is further submitted that after the incident, they have compromised the entire issues and restored their relationship. In this context, it is submitted that the conviction, if allowed to stand, will affect their cordial relationship. Placing reliance on Yogendra Yadav and others v. State of Jharkhand and another ((2014) 9 SCC 653) it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that this is a fit case wherein powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has to be invoked to terminate the proceedings. Paragraph 4 of the decision is pressed into service, which reads as follows:
“Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC which are non- compoundable? Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab - (2012 10 SCC 303). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non- compoundable. In which cases, the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder, etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.”
It is pertinent to note that the Apex Court in the above decision considered the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab ((2012) 10 SCC 303) as well.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court with a revision petition. It may not be possible for the petitioners to canvass invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In answer to this argument, learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on Thankamma v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 846), a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein the above said issue was considered and it was held that in appropriate cases the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked even in a revision. Reckoning the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that as the parties are close relatives and as they have compromised the entire issues and restored their cordial relationship, continuance of the conviction and sentence would only cause erosion in the warmth and cordiality already restored.
In the result, Crl.M.A.No.7694 of 2014 of 2014 is allowed. Revision petition is also allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the revision petitioners, which is confirmed in appeal, is hereby quashed by invoking power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Their bail bonds are cancelled.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks