IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 5085 of 2010()
1. BICKLAK,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.JOY,
... Petitioner
2. SUNITH,AGED 22 YEARS,
3. RAHUL,AGED 19 YEARS,S/O.UDAYAN,
Vs
1. VIJAYAN,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.SANKARAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SHO,
For Petitioner :SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :06/01/2011
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.5085 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused and first
respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No.
410/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court-III, Thrissur, taken cognizance
for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and
448 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on
Annexure-A2 final report. This petition is filed
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash the proceedings contending that entire
disputes with the first respondent, the defacto
complainant, who is the injured, were settled
amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is
not in the interest of justice to continue the
prosecution.
2. First respondent appeared through a counsel
and along with the petitioners filed Crl.M.Appl.
No.8296/2010 for compounding the offences stating
CRMC 5085/10 2
that entire disputes with the petitioners were
settled amicably and therefore, he does not wish to
proceed with the case further and hence, the case
is to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, first respondent and learned Public
Prosecutor were heard.
4. An offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal
Code is not compoundable and hence, permission to
compound the offence, as sought for, cannot be
granted.
5. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan
Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when
the offences alleged against the petitioners are
purely personal in nature and first respondent has
settled all the disputes amicably with the
petitioners and first respondent has no subsisting
grievance against the petitioners, it is not in the
interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
Except the offence under Section 324 of Indian
CRMC 5085/10 3
Penal Code, all the other offences are
compoundable.
6. Prosecution case is that in furtherance of
the common intention, all the petitioners, on
6.6.2010 at about 11.30 p.m., trespassed into the
veranda of the residential house of the first
respondent and wrongfully restrained him and
inflicted injuries on him by beating with an iron
pipe and thereby committed the offences. Offences
alleged are purely personal in nature. The
compounding petition filed by the first respondent
with the petitioners establishes that they have
settled all the disputes. In such circumstances, it
is not in the interest of justice to continue the
prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.410/2010 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-
III, Thrissur is quashed.
6th January, 2011 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv