Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22622 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 November, 2021
Crl.O.P. No.12902 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.12902 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.No.8404 of 2017
1.Aswan Singh
2.Oshmand Sushanth D'Cruz
3.Victor Suneeth D'Cruz ...Petitioners
Vs.
The State rep.by
Inspector of Police
E-2, Royapettah Police Station
Chennai
Crime No.894 of 2013 ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in
C.A.No.100 of 2016 on the file of the 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/6
Crl.O.P. No.12902 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and
quash the proceedings in C.A.No.100 of 2016 on the file of the XIX Additional
Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this
petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the Trial Court did not accept
the compromise petition. It is also to be noted that originally the charge sheet
has been filed against the accused for causing grievous hurt for the offences
under Section 294(b), 506(i), 325 r/w 34 IPC. However, the Trial Court has
acquitted the accused after full trial. The same was challenged before the
Sessions Court by way of two appeals viz., one by State and another by the
Defacto Complainant. Both appeals were heard and the Appellate Court has
found the accused guilty. The matter was posted for hearing for sentence.
In the meanwhile, the accused and the defacto complainant entered into
compromise and sought permission of the Appellate Court to compound the
offence. The learned Appellate Judge raised the question as to the
maintainability of the application since he has found the accused guilty for the
offence, against which, the present petition has been filed under section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/6 Crl.O.P. No.12902 of 2017
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
there is no embargo in law to invoke the provisions under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
4. This Court has perused the entire materials available on record.
Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C makes it clear that when appeal is pending, without
permission of such Court, no compromise is permitted.
The apprehension of the Appellate Court was that since it has found the
accused guilty, when the matter is pending only for passing the sentence, the
compromise petition filed to compound offence is not maintainable.
5. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in
(1995) 2 Supreme court cases 513 in the case of “Rama Narang Vs Ramesh
Narang, held that under the Criminal Procedure Code, there are two stages in a
criminal trial before a Sessions Court, the stage up to the recording of a
conviction and the stage post-conviction up to the imposition of sentence. After
the conviction is recorded, Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. inter alia provides that the
Judge shall hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass sentence
on him according to law. After the court records a conviction, the accused has
to be heard on the question of sentence and it is only after the sentence is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3/6 Crl.O.P. No.12902 of 2017
awarded that the judgment becomes complete and can be appealed against
under section 374 of the Code.
6. The above judgment makes it clear that only after sentence is awarded
to the convicted person, the judgment will be complete. Therefore,
apprehension of the Trial Court, as to maintainability of petition to compound
the offence is unwarranted as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial court can very well entertain
the compromise petition. Though, this Court would have invoked the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings based on
the compromise by taking note of the relation, but the identity of the parties to
enter compromise has to be established only by the Court below.
7. In such view of the matter, the accused are directed to appear before
XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai on 25.11.2021 and file a petition for
compounding offence since the offence under Section 325 of Cr.P.C. is
compoundable as per Section 2 of Cr.P.C. with the permission of the Court, the
Appellate Court can entertain the same and pass orders on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/6 Crl.O.P. No.12902 of 2017
8.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.11.2021 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order: Non-speaking order msv
To
1. The Inspector of Police E-2, Royapettah Police Station Chennai
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5/6 Crl.O.P. No.12902 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
msv
Crl.O.P.No.12902 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.8404 of 2017
18.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6/6
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!