THANKAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been placed before us on a reference by Justice R. Basant doubting the correctness of the view expressed by another learned Judge of this Court in Baiju v. S.I. of Police and Anr. (2006 (3) KLT 49 : ILR 2006 (2) Ker. 747). Learned Judge in his reference order posed the question as to whether a non-compoundable offence be legally compounded by the victim of the offence and such composition be accepted by criminal courts exercising original, appellate or revisional powers under the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) Learned Single Judge while deciding Baiju's case exercised his revisional power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and compounded the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code which are otherwise non-compoundable either under Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While accepting the compounding application learned single Judge expressed the following view:

(3.) Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, counsel appearing for the revision petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single in Baiju's case (supra) and submitted that interests of justice demands that the court should accept the request for compounding and the offences be compounded and the accused persons be acquitted of all the charges. Sri. P. G. Thampi, Director General of Prosecutions who appeared for the State and opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the offence under Section 498(A) IPC cannot be compounded since that offence has not been included either under Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel submitted in any view of the matter this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot compound an offence which is otherwise a non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.