KUNHALI, S/O. ASSAIN, AGED 44 YEARS, KANGHIRAKANDY VEEDU, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT Vs. S.I. OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673001,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in this case was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 406 of IPC. He was acquitted of the offence under Section 498A and was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default of which, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence as follows :

(2.) BEFORE this court, de facto complainant and the accused have jointly filed Crl.M.A.No. 9089/11, pointing out that the matter has been settled between the parties and that the de facto complainant has no further grievance in the matter and praying that the compounding petition filed by them may be accepted. This court by order dated 10.11.2011, took note of the above petition and directed the parties to appear before the learned Magistrate concerned on 30.11.2011 for conducting enquiry regarding the veracity of the petition filed by the parties before this court. The learned Magistrate, namely, the JFCM, Kunnamangalam has informed this court that when the case was called at 30.11.2011, there was no representation on either side and therefore, the counsel for the accused was summoned and he submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. This court is also informed that as the parties have not appeared for the purpose of enquiry, he could not conduct the enquiry as ordered by this court. In the light of the report received from the JFCM, Kunnamangalam, the counsel appearing for the de facto complaint was asked whether the compounding petition can be accepted. The reply was in the affirmative. It is submitted that the de facto complainant was present before the court and that she had agreed for a settlement of the matter. However, the value of the articles for which S. 406 has been invoked, has to be more than Rs. 2,500/ -. But the fact remains that the parties have settled their disputes and have buried their differences. Since the value is more than what is mentioned in Section 320 of Cr.PC, the only course available to this court to show some leniency in the matter of sentence.