LI Network
Published on: October 27, 2023 at 17:10 IST
The Kerala High Court emphasized the significance of the court’s permission for compounding an offense, highlighting that this permission hinges on the nature of the alleged offenses.
The court clarified that the offenses can be compounded with the court’s permission, provided the complainant has already received the agreed amount. However, the court noted that the circumstances leading to the complainant’s withdrawal from the composition of the offenses were not presented.
In this case, a Single Judge Bench, presided over by Justice K. Babu, reiterated that, according to established legal principles, the compounding of a compoundable offense, as defined in Sub-section (1), is finalized as soon as the court accepts it. This compounding results in the acquittal of the accused, even if the person who initially agreed to the composition later withdraws from it.
The court underlined that, although the offenses are compoundable with the court’s permission, the composition remains without any legal consequences until the court grants its approval.
The case involved charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had collected money from respondent No. 1 under false pretenses, promising to arrange a job visa for Australia.
The petitioner was accused of obtaining wrongful gains, causing wrongful loss to the victim. However, during the investigation stage, the petitioner claimed that the dispute had already been settled between the parties.
The victim had initially filed a statement before the Investigating Officer, stating that the dispute had been resolved, and she did not wish to pursue the offense.
The Investigating Officer conveyed this information to the Magistrate, stating that the victim had received Rs. 1,75,000 as a full and final settlement. However, the victim later informed the Magistrate that she was no longer pressing the application for composition, which the Magistrate dismissed as “not pressed.” Subsequently, notices were served to the victim, but she did not appear before the court.
The High Court, upon careful examination, determined from the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) that the act of compounding is a unilateral one, and a joint application by the accused and the victim is not a requirement of Section 320.
The court explained that the moment a petition for composition is filed, it has the effect of acquittal under Sub-section (8) of Section 320, provided it is genuine, voluntary, and satisfies the court.
The court further noted that even in cases of offenses compoundable without the court’s permission, the court must be satisfied that the composition is genuine, true, and voluntary. When such satisfaction is met, the composition results in acquittal.
In light of Section 320(2) of CrPC, the court emphasized that the Magistrate’s role is to make a judicial decision regarding whether the parties should be permitted to compromise in the interest of justice. Until the court grants its sanction, a composition has no legal effect and does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to try the case.
Consequently, the High Court found no reason to intervene and disposed of the case.
Case title: “Johnson Stephen v. Chinchumol and Anr.”
