AMIRTHALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused in all the cases. He has been charge sheeted under Sections 467, 471 and 120 (b) IPC. After a complete trial, the trial Court convicted him. He has preferred appeals in C. A. Nos. 143, 144 and 145 of 2000 before the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court , Chennai. He has filed miscellaneous petitions in Crl. MP. Nos. 6537, 6538 and 6539 of 2007 with a prayer to permit them under Section 320 (5) of Cr. P. C to compound the matter between the accused and the complainant. After hearing the above petitions, the learned vi Sessions Judge on 08. 08. 2007 dismissed the petitions on an observation that since these offences do not come under Section 320 (5) Cr. P. C. as compoundable offences, no permission could be granted and all these petitions were dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would contend that high Court has got every power under Section 482 Cr. Pc to grant permission to the parties to compound the offences. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions reported in Krishnan Vs. State (1991 L. W. Crl. 590) and S. Haja mohideen & Others V. State of Tamilnadu etc. (2002-2 L. W. (crl. ) 948), wherein this Court has permitted the parties to compound the offence.

(3.) THE learned counsel also cited another Judgment of apex Court in M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. V. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998 cri. L. J. 1) for the proposition of law as to the power of the High Court under section 482 to quash the criminal proceedings in various stages.