Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 367  OF 2013 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)NO.1214 OF 2013)  

PADMALAYAN & ANR. APPELLANTS

                VERSUS

SARASAN & ANR.                                RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Kerala  at  Ernakulam  in  Criminal  

Revision  Petition  No.1831  of  2004,  dated  11.10.2012.  By  the  

impugned  judgment  and  order,  the  High  Court  has  confirmed  the  

orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal  

No.12 of 2011, dated 11.3.2004.

3. On a private complaint filed by the respondents herein for  

offences under Sections 141, 142, 143, 148, 149, 307, 324, 37 and  

34  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  ('the  IPC'  for  short),  the  

learned Magistrate had convicted the appellants herein and had  

sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two  

years alongwith fine under Section 324 of the IPC. Being aggrieved  

by the said order, the accused persons had approached the learned  

Sessions Judge. The learned Judge, while confirming the conviction  

of  the  accused,  has  modified  the  sentence  to  one  year  simple  

imprisonment and for payment of Rs.10,000/- as fine on each of the  

appellants,  and,  in  default,  to  undergo  further  simple

Page 2

2

imprisonment of six months.  Aggrieved by the said order, the  

accused persons had filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the  

High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties to the lis,  

has dismissed the Petition filed by the accused persons. That is  

how the accused persons are before us in this appeal.

4. The learned counsel, at the time of hearing of the appeal,  

would  submit  that  the  parties  to  the  lis have  compounded  the  

offence under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

(‘the Code’ for short). To this effect, an appropriate affidavit  

has also been filed before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits  

that he has no objection if the accused persons are permitted to  

compound the offence under Section 320 of the Code.

6. In view of the understanding between the parties, we permit  

the accused persons to compound the offences as provided under  

Section 320 of the Code.  Accordingly, we set aside the impugned  

order and acquit the appellants of the charges alleged against  

them.

7. For wasting the time of the Courts below and this Court, we  

impose a cost of Rs.15,000/- each on the accused person/(s) for  

being deposited in the Supreme Court Employees' Mutual Welfare  

Fund within four weeks' time from today.  If such deposit is not

Page 3

3

made within the time granted, the appeal stands dismissed, without  

further reference to the Court.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 25, 2013