High Court Kerala High Court

Sreeja vs Aysha on 27 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sreeja vs Aysha on 27 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2313 of 2009()


1. SREEJA, W/O. BIJUMON, 24 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SILJA,D/O. SIVARAMAN, AGED 22 YEARS

                        Vs



1. AYSHA, W/O. HAMEED, AGED 45 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SABIRA, D/O.HAMEED, AGED 22 YEARS

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT

                For Respondent  :AYSHA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :27/07/2009

 O R D E R
               M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
              --------------------------
                Crl.M.C.No.2313 of 2009
              --------------------------

                         ORDER

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.192/2009 on

the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,

Chalakudy. Prosecution case is that on 29.9.2008 at

about 9 a.m., in furtherance of their common intention,

petitioners attacked respondents 1 and 2 and inflicted

grievous hurt and thereby committed offences under

Sections 452, 323, 324 and 326 read with section 34 of

Indian Penal Code. Based on Annexure-2 final report,

learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said

offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings

contending that the disputes with respondents 1 and 2

were amicably settled and in such circumstances, it is

not, in the interest of justice, to proceed with the

case.

2. Annexure-3 joint petition was filed under

Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure to compound

the offences. As an offence under Section 326 of

Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, permission

cannot be granted to compound the offence. As held by

CRMC 2313/09 2

the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab

(2008 (3) KLT 19) and in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008

(4) KLT 417), when the disputes with the injured

defacto complainant were already settled and in view of

the settlement, there is no possibility of a successful

prosecution, it is not, in the interest of justice, to

proceed with the case further and waste the valuable

time of the court.

3. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 and learned

Public Prosecutor establish that there was an amicable

settlement of the disputes between the petitioners and

respondents 1 and 2, the injured in the case. In view

of the settlement, possibility of a successful

prosecution is very bleak. Hence, it is not, in the

interest of justice to continue the proceedings.

Petition is allowed. C.C.No.192/2009 on the file

of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Chalakudy

as against the petitioners is quashed.

27th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv