IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH APRIL 2009 / 8TH VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1418 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.133/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------- 1. NOUSHAD S/O. HASSAN, A.T.HOUSE, KODASSERY PARAMBU, NAGATHAMPADAM, OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE. 2. UBAIDULLA S/O. HASSAN, A.T.HOUSE, KODASSERY PARAMBU, NAGATHAMPADAM, OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 3. ABDUL NAZAR S/O. ABU, UDAYAMANGALA PARAMBU, ARIKADU, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1418 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of April, 2009 O R D E R Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.133/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode, wherein, they are indicted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294 (b) read with Section 34 of the IPC on a charge laid by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nallalam Police Station. The petitioners have settled the disputes with the defacto complainant, the 3rd respondent in the petition, and he has agreed to withdraw the case against the petitioners, is the basis for filing the petition to quash the above case pending before the Magistrate Court in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. A photo copy of the CRL.M.C.1418/09 2 agreement entered by the petitioners with the 3rd respondent and the wife of the 1st petitioner is relied by the counsel to contend that the parties have settled the disputes and agreed to terminate the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the 3rd respondent and also the wife of the 1st petitioner. This Court cannot go into the genuineness of the compromise purported to have been entered by the parties. Whether the composition, if any, made with the parties, deserves to be accepted, is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate and not by this Court. I do not find this is a fit case calling for the exercise of the inherent powers of this Court as desired by the petitioners. It is open to the petitioners to approach the concerned Magistrate and seek appropriate orders on the basis of the composition, if any, entered between the parties. Criminal M.C. is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009