Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE20H DAY OF DECEMBER201329TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2165 of 2013 (A1) -------------------------------- CRL.A502011 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR CC8572007 of J.M.F.C.-III,THRISSUR REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SHIJU, AGED38YEARS S/O. JOSE, VELIYANNUKKARAN HOUSE, KUNNANATTUKARA P.O.ERAVIMANGALAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/ADDL.R2 TO5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL. R2: SUNNY JOHN, S/O. KOCHU LONAPPAN @ LONAPPAN, AGED47YEARS, RESIDING ATCHIRAYATH ALUKKA HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. *ADDL. R3: BABU JOHN, S/O. KOCHU LONAPPAN @ LONAPPAN, AGED48YEARS, RESIDING ATCHIRAYATH ALUKKA HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O., MANNUTHY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. *ADDL. R4: SHEELA SUNNY, D/O. KOCHU LONAPPAN @ LONAPPAN, CHIRAYATH ALUKKA HOUSE, NETTISSERYP.O., MANNUTHY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. *ADDL. R5: SHIBY JOSEPH, D/O. KOCHU LONAPPAN @ LONAPPAN, CHIRAYATH ALUKKA HOUSE, NETTISSERYP.O., MANNUTHY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. (* IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS2TO5VIDE ORDER
DTD. 20.12.2013 IN CRL.M.A.114/2014 IN CRL.R.P.2165/2013) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS ADDL.R2 TO5BYADV.SRI.YASH THOMAS MANNULLY THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2012-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2165 of 2013 (A1) APPENDIX REVN. PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: NIL RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A: AFFIDAVIT DATED1012.2013, SWORN TO BY THE ADDL.SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN, ON HIS BEHLFAND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ADDL.RESPONDENTS3TO5HEREIN. OKB. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE K.HARILAL, J.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Crl.R.P. No.2165 of 2013 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dated this the 20th day of December, 2013 ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.857/2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thrissur as well as the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.50/2011 on the files of the District and Sessions Court, Thrissur Division. He was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of the IPC and Section 148 r/w 177 and Section 146 r/w 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the 'M.V. Act'). After trial, he was found guilty of the offences and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of `1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 279 of the IPC, simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of `3,000/- under Section 304A of the IPC, simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of `1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of `1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Crl.R.P.2165/13 :2: Section 338 of the IPC, sentenced to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 146 r/w 196 of the M.V. Act. The accused was found not guilty under Section 148 r/w 177 of the M.V. Act and is acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Feeling aggrieved, though he had preferred an appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the conviction and sentence as such, without any interference. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.
2. Though this Revision Petition is filed on various grounds assailing the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the dispute involved in this Revision Petition has been settled amicably between the legal heirs of the deceased and the revision petitioner, and the legal heirs have been compensated sufficiently for the loss sustained to the family. Now, the legal heirs of the deceased are impleaded as additional respondent Nos.2 to 5. In the petition filed by the additional respondent No.2 for and on behalf of the other additional respondents, it is also stated that in lieu of the loss sustained to the family of the deceased, the revision petitioner has paid adequate compensation to them and they do not intend to prosecute the Crl.R.P.2165/13 :3: revision petitioner for the offence committed by him.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner cited Gian Singh V. State of Punjab 2012(4) KLT108(SC) and drew my attention to para 57 of the above decision, which reads as follows: "57. ....... In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the Crl.R.P.2165/13 :4: High Court shall be we ll within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 4. Having regard to the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased have been compensated sufficiently for the loss sustained to the family, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the non compoundable offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC are compounded and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside. This composition shall have the effect of an acquittal of the revision petitioner of all the offences within the meaning of Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (K.HARILAL, JUDGE) okb.