IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2694 of 2009()
1. RAGHAVAN PILLAI ,S/O.GOPALA PILLAI
... Petitioner
2. HARIDAS, S/O. KUMARA PILLAI
3. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KUMARA PILLAI
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. VELU PILLAI,
3. KOCHU NARAYANAN, S/O.VELYUDHAN PILLAI
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.C.SINOY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :27/08/2009
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2694 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.4250/2005
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s
Court-I, Ernakulam. Respondents 2 and 3 were
respectively the President and Secretary of Kerala
Padmasaleeya Sangham No.13, Kulayattikara.
Petitioners were the office bearers during the
period 2000-01. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a
complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate’s
Court-I, Ernakulam alleging that petitioners
committed offences under Sections 468 and 409 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It was sent
for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure. Annexure-I FIR in Crime
No.336/2004 was registered. After investigation,
Annexure-II final report was submitted, based on
which learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences. This petition is filed under Section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that the
CRMC 2694/09 2
case was lodged consequent to the disputes with the
subsequent office bearers and the entire disputes
were amicably settled and in such circumstances,
there is no necessity to proceed with the case.
2. Annexure-III joint petition is filed by the
petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 seeking
permission to compound the offences contending that
it is only due to the personal dispute which arose
at the time of election of the new committee of the
Sangham the case was lodged against the previous
office bearers and as the entire disputes were
later resolved, permission is to be granted to
compound the offences. As the offences are not
compoundable, permission cannot be granted to
compound the offences.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and respondents 2 and 3 and learned Public
Prosecutor were heard.
4.Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that
statement of the second respondent, the defacto
complainant shows that there was a complete
CRMC 2694/09 3
settlement of all the disputes between the
petitioners and respondents 2 and 3.
5. Annexure-III joint statement filed by the
petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 establish that
there was a complete settlement of all the disputes
between the parties and dispute was actually in
between previous office bearers and subsequent
office bearers and that too due to the dispute at
the time of election. In such circumstances, when
the disputes were settled and consequent to the
settlement chances of a successful prosecution is
very bleak, as held by the Apex Court in Madan
Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19),
it is not in the interest of justice to continue
the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.4250/2005 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I,
Ernakulam is quashed.
27th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv