Criminal Antecedents Of Accused Not Bar To Compound An Offence, Which Is Otherwise Compoundable: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that prime facie an offence of theft was made out against the petitioner which is a compoundable offence. It stated that theft is a compoundable offence and could be settled based on the affidavit filed by the owner whose property was stolen.

“Holding so, 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.”

The petitioner is the third accused who has approached the Court to quash proceedings initiated against him.

As per the prosecution allegation, the accused persons reached at the tea shop run by de facto complainant and her husband with intent to steal her gold necklace. It is alleged that 1^st accused snatched the gold necklace and left the place in the bike along with the 2^nd and 3^rd accused. It is alleged that the accused persons caused a loss of Rs 1,35,000 by stealing the gold necklace of the de facto complainant and committed offences punishable under Sections 392 (punishment for robbery) read with 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

The petitioner submitted that only an offence of theft was attracted which is a compoundable offence. It was stated that no offence of robbery was committed. The petitioner stated that the de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in multiple crimes. It was stated that an offence of robbery was not compoundable based on settlement.

Section 379 provides punishment for theft and Section 392 provides punishment for robbery. Section 390 defines when theft becomes robbery.

The Court determined that the facts of the case did not constitute an offence of robbery, but instead only amounted to an offence of theft. The Court stated the offence of theft was compoundable at the option of the owner whose property was stolen.

It said, “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.”

As such, the petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed against the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates K Sudhinkumar, S Nithin (Anchal)

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Gokul D Sudhakaran, Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 512

Case Title: Joel Joji v State of Kerala

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 5385 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Order