IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 660 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.533/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------------- PRADEEP, S/O.DIVAKARAN, KALANGATTU KIZHAKKATHIL, ANAKKOTTOOR MURI, NEVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU. S RESPONDENTS: STATE AND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 660 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who was the 3rd accused in C.C. No. 533/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara for offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 324 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 IPC, seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 589/2004 which is a case re-filed after the disposal of the C.C No. 533/2001 on 28.05.2004. The de facto complainant and the rest of the accused had filed a petition for compounding the offences and the said petition was allowed and accordingly C.C No. 533/2001 was disposed of giving them the benefit under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, in the compounding petition filed by the de facto complainant as against the rest of the accused there is a statement that the complainant does not intend to prosecute the case as against the petitioner herein as well. According to the petitioner, even though he was not a signatory to the said joint petition as he was employed elsewhere, since the complainant had expressed as CRL. M.C. NO. 660/2008 : 2: above in the joint petition dated 28.05.2004, the petition should be treated as a composition as against the petitioner/3rd accused also. This contention of the petitioner appears to be true. The petitioner can move the Magistrate by filing a petition seeking the benefit of the composition recorded in the joint petition dated 28.05.2004. In case the petitioner moves the Magistrate, it shall be treated as a request by the de facto complainant for composition as against the 3rd accused as well and appropriate orders shall be passed. This Crl. M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 660/2008 : 3: