IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1409 of 2008 ------------------------- CC.492/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- NOUSHAD ALI, S/O.UMMER, PALAKKAL HOUSE, THRIKKALANGODE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAVANNA POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.1409 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.170 of 1999 of Edavanna police station for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him as C.C.No.492/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Manjeri. As a matter of fact the sole injured/de facto complainant had compounded the offences as against accused Nos.1 and 3 as evidenced by Annexures C & E orders dated 28-4-2004 and 5-10-2005 respectively in C.C.No. 12/2004 and C.C.No.472/2005. In Annexures B & D compounding petitions it was unequivocally stated that the dispute has been settled in the presence of mediators and the complainant has no surviving grievance. What is more important is that in Annexures C & E CRMC.1409/2008 -2- orders, the learned magistrate while accepting the composition and acquitting A1 and A3 had even passed orders for final disposal of the properties. This would show that the trial court also was of the view that the matter is settled once and for all notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner/2nd accused was absconding. The de facto complainant is now stated to be abroad and not available for joining one more composition with the petitioner. In view of the mode of disposal of Annexures B & D petitions by recording the composition as against A1 and A3, I see no reason why the benefit of the said composition should not be given to the petitioner as well. Accordingly, C.C.No.492/2007 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manjeri shall stand quashed in the light of the settlement of the dispute between the de facto complainant and accused Nos.1 and 3. This Crl.M.c.is allowed accordingly. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ks.