B.P. Ray, J.@mdashHeard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned senior counsel Sri K. Gopalakrishna Kurup for the second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc I), Kottayam in S.C. No. 290/2009. By the impugned judgment, the trial court found the appellants guilty under Sections 450, 395, 367 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and convicted them accordingly. Appellants 1 to 12 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each u/s 395 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each u/s 367 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each u/s 450 I.P.C. and imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence u/s 323 I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case is that the first accused and P.W. 1 who are husband and wife and were residing together along with the mother of P.W. 1, i.e. C.W. 2 at Thalapalam in House No. TP IV/339. The first accused had decided to sell the house and property, ignoring the objections of C.Ws. 1 and 2 as they have no other house, and first accused, in furtherance of the above intention, engaged accused 2 and 3 as brokers for sale of the property and on 31-8-2007, the first accused sold the house and property where C.Ws. 1 and 2 were residing, to the fourth accused for an amount of Rupees fifty one lakh and since C.Ws. 1 and 2 refused to move out of the house after the sale, accused Nos. 1 to 4 had engaged accused Nos. 5 to 12 for forcefully evicting C.Ws. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 15,000 to be paid to accused Nos. 5 to 12 and in furtherance of the above agreement, accused Nos. 1 to 12 had travelled in the Tata Sumo vehicles belonging to eighth and ninth accused (KL-5P 3068 and KL-12/b 4008) on 1-9-2007 at about 12.30 in the noon and reached the house and accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 had broke opened the front door of the house and entered into the house and accused Nos. 1 and 2 had voluntarily caused hurt to C.Ws. 1 and 2 by beating with hand and kicking with legs and thereafter the accused in this case had forcefully brought out C.Ws. 1 and 2 from inside the house and in the meanwhile accused Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 entered into the house and committed dacoity and extortion by taking away the bag belonging to C.W. 1 containing gold chains, Rs. 30,000, dollar, mobile phone and key of lockers. Thereafter accused Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 had together forcefully took C.Ws. 1 and 2 in Car KL-5P 3068 driven by 8th accused towards Vezhanganam and while on travelling in the Sumo vehicle, the fifth accused had forcefully put waste cloths into the mouth of C.W. 1 and 6th accused pushed waste cloth to the mouth of C.W. 2 to avoid crying and they also committed dacoity by forcefully snatching the gold chain worn by C.Ws. 1 and 2 and thereafter abandoned C.Ws. 1 and 2 on the roadside at Vezhanganam and since all the accused were acting with the common intention and accused 1 to 4 had abetted the commission of offences by accused 5 to 12, all accused are commonly liable for offences alleged above.
4. The evidence on record reveals that the issues which lead to the unfortunate incidents narrated above were essentially the outcome of a matrimonial dispute.
5. There are other disputes pending between the de facto complainant wife and the 1st accused husband. Crl. R.P. 2467/2012 filed by the 1st respondent pending before this Court against the judgment in Crl. A. No. 82/2010 of Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam arising out of M.C. (D.V.) No. 43/2007 of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Erattupetta and R.P.F.C. No. 222/2007 of the Family Court, Kottayam were also settled between the parties. Parties appeared before court in person and filed joint statements and accordingly orders were passed as per the terms of settlement in the above said cases. Now the fourth accused/fourth appellant has executed a registered document granting a right of way over the property purchased by him to the property belonging to the son of the petitioner and first accused.
6. Now the parties have settled the disputes amicably. The de facto complainant (wife of the first accused) filed Crl. M.A. No. 1172 of 2014 seeking to invoke the powers of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to treat the offences as compounded and to quash the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants. Hence the question arises for consideration is:
Whether the offences which are non-compoundable in nature can be compounded and if not, whether the High Court, in exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., can quash the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants, in the circumstances of the case.
7. The position regarding the same is settled now after the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in a number of cases. The Apex Court held that though the High Court cannot compound the offences which are non-compoundable in nature, it can very well use its wide powers u/s 482 to quash the charge against accused even in pre-trial stage. The decision in
8. In another reported decision, i.e.
9. This Court itself, while exercising its powers u/s 482, quashed a charge-sheet filed under Sections 308 and 324 I.P.C. in which the proceedings were initiated at the instance of a complaint launched by the daughter-in-law noting the fact that disputes were amicably settled between the parties (
10. In
11. Now, in this case as stated above, all the disputes between the parties have been settled and joint statements are filed. Certain other disputes over the property are also settled.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to accept the request of the parties for compounding the offences and the institution of marriage could be saved and the ends of justice would be met by exercising the powers u/s 482 as held by this Court in
Crl. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
