IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1133 of 2010()
1. HAMEED, S/O.KAMAL, KUNNATHVALAPPIL
... Petitioner
2. SANDEEP KUMAR.K., S/O.GOPI, ALINKAL
3. DHANESH K., S/O.SWAMIDASAN,
Vs
1. SHYJU.K., S/O.APPUNNI,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :05/04/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. NO. 1133 OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.475 of
2009, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First
Class-I, Kozhikode. The first respondent is the de facto complainant.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 323, 324, 341 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The prayer in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.475 of 2009. It is stated that the
petitioners and the first respondent are the students of Government
Law College, Kozhikode. It is also stated that the petitioners and the
first respondent had settled all their disputes and differences.
4. The first respondent has entered appearance through
counsel and an affidavit sworn to by the first respondent/de facto
complainant is filed as Annexure A3, in which, it is stated that the
petitioners and the first respondent are on cordial terms and that the
disputes have been settled.
Crl.M.C. NO. 1133 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted, relying
on the decisions in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008
(3) KLT 19(SC)) and Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2008 (3) KLT 769(SC)), that in the facts and
circumstances, the complaint is liable to be quashed. In Madan
Mohan Abbot’s case, the Supreme Court held that criminal
proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can be quashed
by accepting the terms of compromise reached between the rival
parties, if the question involved in such disputes is purely of a
personal nature. In Nikhil Merchant’s case, it was held that
technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of Court’s
power to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable
offences where the dispute is compromised between the rival
parties. It was held that the proceedings can be quashed invoking
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the
compromise.
6. In the present case, the parties have settled the disputes
and differences and it is reflected in the affidavit sworn to by the de
facto complainant.
Crl.M.C. NO. 1133 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the offence and the settlement of disputes
between the parties, I am of the view that the proceedings in
C.C.No.475 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
of the First Class I, Kozhikode can be quashed. I do so.
Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.475 of 2009 on the file of the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Kozhikode will
stand quashed.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/