NIJITH Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the first accused in Crime No.50/2003 of the Anthikad Police Station involving offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 341, 323 and 308 IPC. On final report in the crime proceedings were initiated against the seven accused in the crime, as C.P. 44/2003 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate No.II, Thrissur. On committal the case came before the court of Session, Thrissur as S.C 592/2003. When the petitioner herein absconded during trial, his case was split up and refiled as SC. 1003/2010. Trial against the other accused proceeded in SC.592/03 before the learned first Additional Assistant Sessions Judge Thrissur. The material witnesses did not support the prosecution during trial. In such a situation, all the other accused were acquitted by the learned trial judge under Section 232 of Cr.P.C in the absence of any incriminating material. However proceedings against the first accused continued. Later he entered appearance in SC. 1003/2010. In view of acquittal of the others in the absence of any incriminating material he filed application as C.M.P 197/2010 for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Affidavit of the material witnesses attested by Notary public were also produced along with the application. But the learned trial judge did not accept the affidavit or the prayer for discharge. Accordingly, CMP 197/2010 was dismissed by order dated 2.2.2013. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) THE material witnesses including the two persons who sustained injuries in the alleged incident were impleaded in this proceedings, as additional respondents 3 to 5. They made appearance through Counsel. They also filed affidavit before this court to the effect that they have no complaint or grievance, and that the offences stand well compounded under the law. Of course, the offence under Section 308 IPC is not compoundable. The other offences under Section 143, 147 and 148 IPC are also not compoundable. However it is a fact that the parties have amicably settled the whole dispute out of court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Sing & others Vs State of Punjab & another reported in, 2004 (2) KLJ 252 SC. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme court has given some guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to accept composition even in cases where the offences are not really compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the parties have come to amicable settlement of the whole dispute, and continuance of prosecution will involve sheer waste of time and energy, or abuse of process, composition can be accepted by court even in the case of non compoundable offences, though not under Section 320 Cr.P.C.