Kerala High Court
Urumbadayil Sibi vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.R.P.No. 1469 of 2017
..1..
2025:KER:69718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 27TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1469 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2017 IN Crl.A NO.399 OF 2008
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT - II, THALASSERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2008 IN SC NO.429 OF
2002 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANNUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 6:
1 URUMBADAYIL SIBI
S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
MANDALAM P.O., NADUVIL AMSOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670582.
2 URUMBADAYIL DEVI @ FRANCIS
S/O.MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS,
MANDALAM P.O., NADUVIL AMSOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670582.
3 URUMBADAYIL CHARLES
S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS,
MANDALAM P.O., NADUVIL AMSOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670582.
4 URUMBADAYIL WILSON
S/O.MATHEW, AGED 41 YEARS,
MANDALAM P.O., NADUVIL AMSOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670582.
Crl.R.P.No. 1469 of 2017
..2..
2025:KER:69718
5 KADUPPIL SHEEN
S/O.JOY @ JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS,
MANDALAM P.O., NADUVIL AMSOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670582.
6 KADUPPIL JISHO
S/O.THOMAS, AGED 35 YEARS,
MANDALAM P.O., NADUVIL AMSOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670582.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THROUGH S.H.O. KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT-682031.
*2 SAJI AUGUSTINE @ SAJI.M
S/O.AUGUSTINE, AGED 51 YEARS,
MANNARATHARA HOUSE, POTHUKUNDU,
NADUVIL.P.O, NEW NADUVIL AMSOM,
KANNUR DISTRICT
3 SEBASTIAN JOSEPH
S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS,
MANNARTHARA HOUSE, PULLIKURUMBA P.O,
NEW NADUVIL AMSOM,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670582
4 M.MATHEW @ MATHEW MANNARATHARA,
S/O JOSEPH, AGED 51, MANNARATHARA HOUSE,
PULLIKURUMBA P.O, NEW NADUVIL AMSOM,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670582
*(ADDITIONAL R2 TO R4 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED
28.02.25 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2025 IN
CRL.R.P.NO.1469/2017
Crl.R.P.No. 1469 of 2017
..3..
2025:KER:69718
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.VIVEK RABINDRANATH
SMT.T.K.SNEHASREE
SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No. 1469 of 2017
..4..
2025:KER:69718
ORDER
This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging
the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence of the
petitioners under Sections 143, 148, 324 and 326 r/w Section
149 of IPC.
2. I have heard both sides.
3. Now the matter has been settled between the
parties. The petitioners and the injured/additional respondent
Nos. 2 to 4, have filed a compounding petition. It is stated
that the entire matter has been settled between the parties
and the additional respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have no grievance
against the petitioners. However, the offences are non-
compoundable in nature.
4. The averments in Crl.M.A.No. 2 of 2025 would
show that the entire dispute between the parties has been
amicably settled and the injured/defacto complainants have
decided not to proceed with the criminal proceedings further.
..5..
2025:KER:69718
5. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
[2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)], Narinder Singh and Others v. State
of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and in State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others [(2019) 5 SCC
688] has held that the High Court by invoking Section 482 of
Cr.P.C can quash criminal proceedings in relation to non-
compoundable offence where the parties have settled the
matter between themselves notwithstanding the bar under
Section 320 of Cr.P.C., if it is warranted in the given facts and
circumstances of the case or to ensure the ends of justice or
to prevent abuse of process of any Court. This Court in Soban
v. State of Kerala [2021 (3) KHC 383] has held that even the
cases involving non-compoundable offence can be settled at
post conviction stage invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C in the
interest of justice.
6. The dispute in the above case is purely personal in
nature. No public interest or harmony will be adversely
..6..
2025:KER:69718
affected by quashing the proceedings pursuant to the
judgments in S.C.No.429 of 2002 and Crl.Appeal No.399 of
2008. The offences in question do not fall within the category
of offences prohibited for compounding in terms of the
pronouncement of the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra),
Narinder Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra).
7. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that
no purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter any
further. Accordingly, the impugned conviction and sentence
against the petitioners are hereby set aside in terms of
settlement invoking power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and
the petitioners are accordingly acquitted.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA
