Nijith vs Station House Officer

P. Ubaid, J.—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 u/s 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 u/s 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.

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 u/s 308 IPC is not compoundable. The other offences u/s 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 u/s 482 of Cr.P.C to accept composition even in cases where the offences are not really compoundable u/s 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 u/s 320 Cr.P.C.

In this case I am satisfied that the parties have amicably settled the whole dispute out of court, and the persons who sustained injuries have no grievance or complaint. Continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner will not serve any purpose. Of course the trial court cannot be blamed because sufficient materials were not placed before the trial court along with the application filed u/s 227 Cr.P.C. But here, before this court, all the affected parties are present, and they have filed acceptable affidavit to the effect that they have no grievance or complaint, and that the parties have come to amicable settlement. In such a factual situation the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, and the guidelines made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court can well be applied, and this revision petition can be allowed in the interest of justice. Composition made by the parties is accordingly accepted by the court for securing the ends of justice u/s 482 of Cr.P.C, though composition as such is not acceptable u/s 320 Cr.P.C.

In the result this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the trial court will stand set aside, and the revision petitioner will stand discharged u/s 227 Cr.P.C in SC 1003/2010 of the court below. The bail bond executed by him will stand discharged.