Print Previous Hint Next Hint Print Print
This product is Licensed to :

2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.ANIL KUMAR, J.
Jeevan Joy, S/o. Joy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1519 of 2011
Decided on : 27-10-2020

IMPORTANT POINT
An offence is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. by itself is no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Indian Penal Code- Sections 120B, 366A, 376;; Criminal Procedure Code- Section 482 - Challenging Offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. even though the victim and the accused have come to a compromise to settle the dispute out of court.

Statement of facts:

Whether under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Magistrate the committal was required to take cognizance of the offence triable by a court of session before committing the case to the court of session in accordance with law- Victims’s classmates committed rape on her at Mattannur in Kannur District-Registered Crime under Sections 120B, 366A, 376 of the Indian Penal Code- Challenging the above order of the learned Magistrate, the revision petitioner is before this Court

Finding of the court:

Allegation of rape should fall in the prohibited category and cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society. Hence, offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be quashed by this Court even though the victim and the accused have come to a compromise to settle the dispute out of court.

Result: Criminal revision petition is dismissed,

Catch Words :

Cases Referred:
Dharam Pal & Others v. State of Haryana & another [(2014) 3 SCC 306] - Referred By
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] - Referred By
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others [(2014) 3 SCC 92] - Referred By
Pepsi Foods Ltd. & another v. Special Judicial Magistrate & others [(1998) 5 SCC 749] - Referred By

Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.), SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA,
SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
For the Respondent : SRI.M.S.BREEZ, SMT.K.ANILA

Jeevan Joy, S/o. Joy VS State Of Kerala

ORDER :

The important question arising for consideration in this criminal revision petition is as to whether under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.'), the committal Magistrate was required to take cognizance of the offence triable by a court of session before committing the case to the court of session in accordance with law.

2. The facts leading to the case are hereunder:-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas