- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Unnikrishnan Unnikuttan Petitioner(S) v. State Of Kerala (S)
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner was convicted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and originally sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment by the Trial Court. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. In revision, the High Court of Kerala affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the matter had been amicably settled with the complainants. A joint application seeking (i) permission to compound the offence under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and (ii) impleadment of the complainants as party-respondents was filed. The Court allowed the impleadment application and proceeded to consider whether the offence, admittedly non-compoundable under Section 320, could nonetheless be compounded.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court can permit compounding of an offence under Section 394 IPC, which is not listed as compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The parties have reached a full and final settlement; therefore, the Court should permit compounding of the offence.
- A joint application supported by affidavits from the complainants has been filed, demonstrating their consent to the compromise.
The opinion does not record specific arguments advanced by the State.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bharath Singh v. State of M.P., 1990 Supp SCC 62 | The Supreme Court may, in appropriate circumstances, allow compounding of offences even when they are formally non-compoundable. | Cited as an example where the Court exercised discretionary powers to permit compounding. |
| Ramlal v. State of J&K, (1999) 2 SCC 213 | Illustrates the Court’s willingness to balance legal rigidity with substantial justice through compounding. | Relied upon to support the permissibility of compounding despite statutory bar. |
| Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 1 SCC 711 | Reaffirms that, depending on facts, the Court can maintain conviction but modify or reduce sentence after compromise. | Used to justify exercising power to give effect to the parties’ settlement while securing ends of justice. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged that Section 394 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, it observed that precedents demonstrate a consistent judicial approach allowing compounding of non-compoundable offences in exceptional situations. Invoking its plenary powers, particularly under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court noted the following:
- Several prior decisions have permitted such compounding to achieve substantial justice.
- The present case involves a genuine settlement, evidenced by affidavits from all complainants.
- Public interest is not adversely affected, and the compromise will put an end to the dispute.
On this basis, the Court allowed the application to compound the offence while maintaining the conviction. The Special Leave Petition was therefore disposed of.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court permitted compounding of the offence under Section 394 IPC in view of the parties’ compromise and disposed of the Special Leave Petition; all pending applications were also disposed of.
Implications: The decision reaffirms the Supreme Court’s readiness to invoke Article 142 to allow compounding of non-compoundable offences when a genuine compromise exists. While it provides immediate relief to the petitioner and finality to the dispute, it does not create a new statutory right but underscores the Court’s discretionary power to do complete justice on a case-by-case basis.
1. The petitioner in this Special Leave Petition was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment. The appeal from the said order of conviction and sentence having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court. In revision, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence imposed and reduced the same from 3 years to 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment.
2. In the present Special Leave Petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. During the hearing of this petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informed the Court that the matter had been settled between the parties and a compromise had been entered into between the petitioner and the applicants and to that effect a joint application for permission to compound the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C and application for impleadment as party respondents have been filed.
5. Application for impleadment is allowed.
6. The short question which ultimately arose during the hearing is whether the offence under Section 394 could at all be compounded since the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C
7. The aforesaid question has troubled this Court on different occasions, not only in connection with compounding of offences punishable under the criminal justice system, but also in respect of civil matters, and in respect of matrimonial matters in particular, where the Court had to strike a balance between the rigidity of the law and doing substantial justice to the parties.
8. In order to meet certain unusual situations, this Court has from time to time taken recourse to innovations and the powers vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution, in order to give a quietus to a litigation demanding a pragmatic solution.
9. In the case on hand, the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC and is sentenced to two years Rigorous Imprisonment. We are aware that the said offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C
10. In series of decisions i.e Bharath Singh v. State of M.P, 1990 Supp SCC 62, Ramlal v. State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 1 SCC 711, this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence even though the offence is a non-compoundable depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In some cases this Court while imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
11. What emerges from the above is that even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction.
12. Having regard to the facts of the present case, while taking into account the settlement arrived at between the parties and also considering the affidavits filed before us by each one of the applicants by way of joint application, we allow the application seeking permission to compound the offences.
13. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
14. Consequent upon the disposal of the Special Leave Petition, pending applications filed in the matter also stands disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)…… CRLMP No(s). No. 18630/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18/11/2015 in CRLRP No. 182/2009 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam)
Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan.….Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Kerala.….Respondent(s)
CRLMP. 18630/2016 (with c/delay in filing SLP and permission to file addl. documents and exemption from filing O.T and office report)
Date : 01/03/2017 These applications were called on for hearing today.
(Before Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sriram P., Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Shankar M.S, Adv.
Ms. Athira G. Nair, Adv.
For Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
15. Delay condoned.
16. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
17. Consequent upon the disposal of the Special Leave Petition, pending applications filed in the matter also stands disposed of.
Alert