Kerala High Court
Crl.Rev.Pet/2556/2012 of RAMACHANDRAN NAIR M.G. Vs UDAYAKUMAR @ MADHU on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2556 of 2012 ------------------------------- CRA.262/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT FAST TRACK (ADHOC) COURT, MAVELIKARA CC.220/2003 of J.M.F.C.-II, HARIPAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2556 of 2012
-------------------------------CRA.262/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT FAST TRACK (ADHOC) COURT, MAVELIKARACC.220/2003 of J.M.F.C.-II, HARIPAD
REVISION PETITIONER:
-------------------
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR M.G.HEAD CONSTABLE OF POLICE, 3386,HARIPAD POLICE STATION,HARIPAD, RESIDING AT PERISSERY MADATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL,CHENGANNUUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
RESPONDENTS :COMPLAINANT & STATE :
---------------------------------
1.UDAYAKUMAR @ MADHU,S/O.DASAPPAN ACHARI,VALLIYATH LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY,THULAMPARAMBU THEKKU, HARIPAD, PIN -690514.2.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL (KUMMANAM)R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.K.RAJEEV
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2556 of 2012
---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the second accused inC.C.No.220 of 2003 of the Judicial First Class MagistrateCourt-II, Haripad, which was instituted upon a privatecomplaint filed by the first respondent herein for theoffences punishable under Sections 323, 327, 355, 506(i)& (ii), 120-B & 294(b) read with Section 34 of I.P.C.2.The trial court, by judgment dated 11/05/2009,found that, all the three accused found guilty underSection 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section355 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and against the abovefinding and the sentence the accused have filed separateappeals before the lower appellate court. Thus,Crl.A.No.262 of 2009 was filed by accused Nos.1 and 2whereas, Crl.A.No.263 of 2009 was filed by the thirdaccused. During the pendency of the above appeals, thecase against A3 is compounded and accordingly Crl.R.P.No.2556/2012
: 2 :
Crl.A.No.263 of 2009 was allowed acquitting the thirdaccused. Similarly, the case against A1, who preferredCrl.A.No.262 of 2009 along with the present revisionpetition, is also compounded and the appeal preferred byA1 has also been thus allowed acquitting him. It is afterthe judgment dated 18/02/2012 in Crl.A.No.262 of 2009,the case between the present revision petitioner, who isA2, and the complainant was settled out of court andthus, while challenging the conviction and sentenceimposed against the revision petitioner by filing therevision petition, the complainant is made as respondentNo.1 in the present revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well asthe respondent has submitted that the matter has beensettled out of court. This Court today by a separate orderin Crl.M.Appln.No.9204 of 2012 allowed the abovepetition and recorded the composition of the offencesunder Sections 323 & 355 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.for which the revision petitioner stands convicted andsentenced.
Crl.R.P.No.2556/2012
: 3 :
4. As the offence, for which the revision petitionerstands convicted, is compounded between the parties andapproved by this Court, according to me, this revisionpetition can also disposed of recording the compoundingoffence between the revision petitioner and therespondent/de facto complainant. By virtue of Section320(6) of Cr.P.C., as the offence has already beencompounded, the revision petitioner/accused is entitled toget an acquittal.
In the result, setting aside the judgment dated
Conclusion
11/05/2009 in C.C.No.220/2003 of the Judicial First ClassMagistrate Court-II, Haripad and judgment dated18/2/2012 in Crl.A.No.262 of 2009 of the court of theAdditional Sessions Court, Fast Track (Ad hoc),Mavelikkara, the revision petitioner/accused is acquittedof all the charges levelled against him and accordinglythis revision petition is allowed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE