Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

Need for Judicial Scrutiny in Compounding Offenses: Refused To Quash FIR: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam reiterated the importance of judicial discretion when it comes to compounding offenses and upheld the right of a victim to withdraw their application for composition. The case involved allegations under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, where the petitioner was accused of collecting money on a false promise of arranging a job visa to Australia.

The court's observation emphasized the need for a careful examination of composition requests. In the judgment, it stated, "The question is whether the mere filing of the petition seeking composition results in acquittal. In the normal course, the Court accepts the assertion of the complainant that he has compounded the offense. The voluntariness of such composition can be verified by the Court to satisfy itself that the composition is true, genuine, and voluntary."

The court categorized offenses into two groups: those that can be compounded without the permission of the court and those that require court permission for compounding. The distinction was based on the degree of harm done to the state and society as a whole. It underlined the purpose of promoting peace and amicability between parties through composition.

Regarding offenses compoundable with court permission, the court clarified, "unless and until the Court has granted permission, the composition does not have any consequences." This decision reaffirms the principle that composition is not automatic and depends on the court's satisfaction of the voluntariness and genuineness of the agreement.

Kerala High court declined to quash the proceedings, citing a lack of sufficient material. However, it granted the victims the liberty to move a petition for composition if they chose to do so.

This judgment highlights the crucial role of the judiciary in overseeing the compounding of offenses, ensuring that the process is fair, voluntary, and in the interest of justice.

 Date of Decision: October 25, 2023

JOHNSON STEPHEN VS CHINCHUMOL

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/25-Oct-2023-Johnson_Vs_Chinchmol.pdf"]

Similar News