Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan vs State of Kerala

The petitioner in this Special Leave Petition was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment. The appeal from the said order of conviction and sentence having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court. In revision, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence imposed and reduced the same from 8 years to 9 years Rigorous Imprisonment.

In the present Special Leave Petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

During the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informed the Court that the matter had been settled between the parties and a compromise had been entered into between the petitioner and the applicants and to that effect a joint application for permission to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and application for impleadment as party respondents have been filed.

Application for impleadment is allowed.

The short question which ultimately arose during the hearing is whether the offence under Section 394 could at all be compounded since the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

The aforesaid question has troubled this Court on different occasions, not only in connection with compounding of offences punishable under the criminal justice system, but also in respect of civil matters, and in respect of matrimonial matters in particular, where the Court had to strike a balance between the rigidity of the law and doing substantial justice to the parties.

In order to meet certain unusual situations, this Court has from time to time taken recourse to innovations and the powers vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution, in order to give a quietus to a litigation demanding a pragmatic solution.

In the case on hand, the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC and is sentenced to two years Rigorous Imprisonment. We are aware that the said offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal v. State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka and Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 711, this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence even though the offence is a non-compoundable depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In some cases this Court while imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

What emerges from the above is that even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction.

Having regard to the facts of the present case, while taking into account the settlement arrived at between the parties and also filed before us by each one of the applicants by way of joint application, we allow the application seeking permission to compound the offences.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Consequent upon the disposal of the Special Leave Petition, pending applications filed in the matter also stands disposed of.