SANTHOSH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOES the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, 2008 A. I. R. SCW 2287 permit composition of non-compoundable offences with the only difference that the parties have to come to the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. (and not the lower courts under Section 320 Cr. P. C.) to achieve the benefit of such composition? This is the question raised for consideration in this case.

(2.) PETITIONERS are accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Section 394 IPC. That crime was registered on the basis of the complaint of the third respondent/de facto complainant. In the said FI statement the de facto complainant had alleged that he was the driver of a national permit lorry and that he had run into the company of certain persons who had wanted him to permit them to join him while he was taking alcoholic drinks. While the de facto complainant with some other strangers was taking drinks, another group of five persons came and joined them. The de facto complainant was taken away from the scene and he was robbed of an amount of Rs. 9,870 which was in his possession. He was assaulted and injuries were allegedly caused to him. It is with these allegations that the de facto complainant filed the FI statement. Crime No. 153/08 was registered. Investigation is in progress. No person has been specifically arrayed as accused in the FIR.

(3.) THE petitioners had come to another Bench of this Court earlier seeking anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed on the basis of the statement of the prosecutor that the petitioners have not been arrayed as accused so far.