Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Balan vs State of Kerala

BALAN vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 25, 2023
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1343634

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.Rev.Pet/959/2003

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

BALAN

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice a.muhamed mustaque tuesday, the 25th day of april 2023 / 5th vaisakha, 1945 against the judgment dated 10.12.2002 in cc 462/1993 of judicial magistrate of first class ,changanacherry cra 187/1999 of additional sessions court (special court), kottayam / i additional mact, kottayam revision petitioner/appellant/1st accused: balan, s/o kochukochu, house no.480, road puramboke, a c colony, perunna west kara, changanasserry village by adv sri.sunil cyriac respondent/respondent/complainant: state of kerala represented by the addl.sub inspector of police, changanaserry ( crime no.91/93 of changanasserry police station) through the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam adv. sri. sanal p raj pp this criminal revision petition having come up for admission on 25.04.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following: ..2..o r d e rthis revision petition was preferred by theaccused in c.c no.462/93 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate's court, changanasserry. he has been convicted for anoffence punishable under section 326 of indian penal code. he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of rs.2,000/-.2. pw1 was the defacto complainant, who isno more. pw6 was the only son, who is also no more. the daughter of the pw1 also agreed for a settlement. so also, pw3-the widow of the defacto complainant. the compromise petition is on board.3. though section 326 is a non-compoundable offence, taking note of the nature of dispute, it has no public ramification, i am of the view that ..3..the compounding petition can be acted upon. accordingly, i allow the criminal revision petition in the light of composition and setaside the conviction sentence passed by the court below. sd/- a.muhamed mustaque judge pr

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 5TH VAISAKHA, 1945 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2002 IN CC 462/1993 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHANGANACHERRY CRA 187/1999 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT), KOTTAYAM / I ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED: BALAN, S/O KOCHUKOCHU, HOUSE NO.480, ROAD PURAMBOKE, A C COLONY, PERUNNA WEST KARA, CHANGANASSERRY VILLAGE BY ADV SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANASERRY ( CRIME NO.91/93 OF CHANGANASSERRY POLICE STATION) THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI. SANAL P RAJ PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..

O R D E R

This revision petition was preferred by the

accused    in    C.C    No.462/93    on   the    file   of   the
Judicial        First     Class      Magistrate's        Court,
Changanasserry.         He has been convicted for an

offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

2. PW1 was the defacto complainant, who is

no more. PW6 was the only son, who is also no more. The daughter of the PW1 also agreed for a settlement. So also, PW3-the widow of the defacto complainant. The compromise petition is on board.

3. Though Section 326 is a non-compoundable offence, taking note of the nature of dispute, it has no public ramification, I am of the view that ..3..

the   compounding     petition     can   be    acted   upon.
Accordingly,    I     allow   the     criminal       revision
petition   in   the   light   of    composition      and   set

aside the conviction sentence passed by the court below. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE PR

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial