Parameswari And Another v. Vennila ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

Leave was granted. The appellants had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, they reached a settlement with the complainant, Vennila, who is the wife of appellant Sivaprakasam. The compromise was made in the presence of the panchayatdars of their village, Mannachanallur, and the compromise agreement, duly signed by the parties and panchayatdars, was placed on the Court’s record.

Relying on this settlement, the appellants and the complainant jointly filed an application seeking permission to compound the offence. The wife also filed her independent consent and was represented by an advocate. This order addresses that joint application and the consequent disposition of the appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC in this case is compoundable upon the wife’s consent and with the Court’s permission.

Whether the compromise and the wife’s consent are free, genuine, and in her interest so as to warrant granting permission to compound the offence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that a compromise had been executed by the parties in the presence of village panchayatdars and that the signed agreement was on record. It observed that the compromise, on its face, appeared reasonable and in the wife’s interest. The Court also found that the wife’s consent was free and genuine; it took note that she is an educated woman and that she had filed her consent independently while being represented by counsel.

On the legal standard, the Court stated that the offence in this case is compoundable with the consent of the wife and the permission of the Court. Having satisfied itself as to the genuineness and voluntariness of the consent and the reasonableness of the compromise, the Court concluded that permission to compound the offence deserved to be granted. Consequently, it allowed the application to compound, resulting in the appellants’ acquittal and disposal of the appeals, with cancellation of bail bonds.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application for permission to compound the offence was ALLOWED. The appellants were ACQUITTED of the offence for which they had been convicted. The appeals were DISPOSED OF, and the bail bonds executed by the appellants were CANCELLED. Leave was granted.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the convictions are set aside due to compounding, and the criminal proceedings conclude with the appellants’ acquittal. The order is grounded in the specific facts of the compromise and consent; it does not announce broader legal principles or set a new precedent.

Parameswari And Another v. Vennila .

Order

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC. They have now arrived at a settlement with complainant Vennila, wife of the appellant Sivaprakasam. Compromise was made in the presence of panchayatdars of their village Mannachanallur. The compromise agreement duly signed by the parties and panchayatdars is placed on record of this Court. The appellants and complainant Vennila have now filed a joint application for permission to compound the offence proved against the appellants. The wife has also filed her consent independently and is also represented by an advocate. The compromise on the face of it appears to be reasonable and in the interest of the wife. The consent given by the wife also appears to be free and genuine. She is an educated woman. The offence in this case is compoundable with the consent of the wife and permission of the Court. In our opinion, this is a fit case in which permission deserves to be granted. Accordingly, we grant the application for permission to compound the offence with the result that the appellants stand acquitted of the offence for which they have been held guilty. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The bail bonds executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.

Criminal Appeals No. 741 of 19991 with No. 742 of 19992, decided on August 2, 1999

Parameswari And Another v. Vennila .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Parameswari And Another v. Vennila .

Comments