IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2515 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------ CC.292/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRURANGADI ................................................ PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 -7: -------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, S/O.ASHOKAN, KAKKACHIPPARAMBIL VEEDU, KOLATHURA, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, KAMMADIKULAM. 2. GOPI, S/O.KANNAN KUTTY, KODIMARATHINGAL, POOKKODAN VEEDU,PALLIKKAL AMSOM, CHENAKKAL. 3. RAFEEQ, S/O.HASSAN, PEEDIKAKKANDI VEED, PALLIKKAL AMSOM, CHENAKKAL. 4. MUHAMMED NIZAR, S/O.KOYA, KARAD VEED, NIRATHIRI, PALLIKKAL AMSOM, CHINAKKAL. 5. BABU, S/O.AYYAPPAN, CHOORAKKAYIL VEED, PALLIKKAL AMSOM, KUNUR MADU. 6. CHERIYATHAN, S/O.CHATHAN, KALLAPPURATH VEED, PALLIKKAL AMSOM. 7. RAMAN, S/O.CHATHAN, KALLAPPURATH VEED PALLIKKAL AMSOM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. ABHAYAN, S/O.CLEATUS, KAIVILAYIL VEEDU, KATHILIL P.O., KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R1. ADV. SRI.C.DILIP FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.M.C.No. 2515 of 2009 F =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 to 7 in C.C.No.68 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case, contending that the disputes between petitioners and second respondent are settled. It is also contended that Annexure-2 petition was earlier filed on the side of the prosecution for withdrawal of the prosecution and under Annexure-3 order, it was dismissed and Annexure-3 order shows the settlement and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Second respondent filed Annexure-IV affidavit stating that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and, therefore, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor are heard. 4. Argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that it was second respondent who was confined and when the case is settled with second respondent, in the interest of justice, the proceedings is to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that Annexure-2 petition CRMC 2515/09 2 was filed for withdrawal of the prosecution, but it was dismissed under Annexure-3 order and in view of the settlement of the dispute, the proceedings is to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for second respondent also submitted that the dispute was settled. 5. On hearing the learned counsel, I cannot agree with the submission that on the basis of the settlement arrived at between petitioners and second respondent, the case should be quashed. The offences alleged are under sections 143, 147, 45, 120(b), 341, 332 read with section 149 IPC. It is the prosecution case that on 18-3-2003 in furtherance of common object to obstruct the functioning of the grama panchayat office, petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object, they trespassed into the panchayat office and wrongfully restrained second respondent, an employee of the panchayat office, and caused hurt to him and thereby, they committed the offences. An offence of this nature cannot be allowed to be compounded by settlement with an employee. Interest of justice does not warrant invoking the extra-ordinary inherent power of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case. The petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. mn.