Involvement Of Accused In Other Crimes Is Not A Hurdle In Compounding A Compoundable Offence: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that the involvement of an accused in other crimes is not a hurdle in compounding an offence, which is compoundable.
The Court said that “criminal antecedents shall not be a rider to compound an offence.” It also clarified the distinction between theft and robbery.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “When the matter is compounded at the option of the owner of the property stolen, as espoused from the case records, the same can be accepted. In view of the above finding, this petition is liable to be allowed. For the said exercise, involvement of the petitioner in two more crimes would not be a hurdle, since criminal antecedents shall not be a rider to compound an offence, which is compoundable.”
Advocate K. Sudhinkumar appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Gokul D. Sudhakaran represented the respondents.
The case of the prosecution was that the accused was involved in snatching an expensive gold necklace worn by the defacto complainant. The prosecution framed charges under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC, implicating the accused in the robbery.
The accused argued that the offence if proven, amounted to theft under Section 376 of the IPC rather than robbery under Section 390 of the IPC. The accused also submitted that he filed an affidavit in view of the compromise entered into between him and the defacto complainant, arguing that criminal proceedings against him were liable to be quashed.
The High Court noted that for an act to qualify as robbery, the accused must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause hurt or fear of instant death or hurt during the commission of theft. The Court observed that the ingredients to attract the offence of robbery were not present in the case.
“Reading the prosecution allegations herein, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 390 punishable under Section 392 of IPC are not made out, prima facie. Hence the offence prima facie made out is theft punishable under Section 379 of IPC, which is compoundable at the option of the owner of the property stolen,” the Court noted.
Considering the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant and there being no prima facie case of robbery, the Court quashed the proceedings against the accused.
Consequently, the Court held, “This Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands allowed. Consequently, further proceedings as against the petitioner/3rd accused stand quashed.”
Cause Title: Joel Joji v. State Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:58336)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates K. Sudhinkumar and S. Nithin
Respondents: Advocate Gokul D. Sudhakaran; PP M P Prasanth