High Court Kerala High Court

S.Ajith(Partner Uniq Infro … vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
S.Ajith(Partner Uniq Infro … vs State Of Kerala on 2 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 398 of 2010()


1. S.AJITH(PARTNER UNIQ INFRO TECHNOLOGIES)
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. M/S.DHANASREE CREDITS, INVESTMENTS &

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :02/03/2010

 O R D E R
             M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
            --------------------------
              Crl.M.C.No.398 of 2010
            --------------------------

                       ORDER

Petitioner is the second accused and second

respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No.

30/2008, now pending as L.P.No.74/2008, on the file

of Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Palakkad,

taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420

of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-C complaint filed

by the second respondent. This petition is filed to

quash the cognizance taken contending that entire

disputes with the second respondent were settled

amicably. Petitioner produced Annexure-B, a copy of

the receipt for payment of Rs.65,000/- towards the

full and final settlement of the case in C.C.No.

30/2008.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

was heard.

3. An offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal

Code is compoundable under Section 320(2) of Code

CRMC 398/10 2

of Criminal Procedure with the leave of the court.

It is compoundable by the person who was cheated.

When an offence is compoundable, it is not for this

Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The person who was cheated is at liberty to

approach the learned Magistrate to get leave of the

court to compound the offence.

4. Learned counsel submitted that as a non

bailable warrant is pending, learned Magistrate may

insist for the presence of the petitioner. I find

no reason for the Magistrate to insist for the

presence of the accused, if there was a compounding

of the offence and the offence is compoundable and

it is established before the Magistrate that the

offence is compounded.

Petition is disposed.

2nd March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv