IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 430 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CC.781/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- GEORGEKUTTY ABRAHAM, ANITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KAROOR POST, PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, M/S.KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD., THADIKKARAN CENTER, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 430 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of February,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.781/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam taken cognizance for the offence under section 406,415 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-II final report. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate contending that entire disputes were settled between the parties and first respondent has already filed the original of Annexure -III petition to compound the offence before the learned Magistrate and therefore the proceedings is to be quashed. Crl.M.C.430/2010 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The offences under section 406 as well as 420 of Indian Penal Code are compoundable under section 320(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. When the offence is compoundable, it is not for this court to exercise the inherent extra ordinary jurisdiction and to quash the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that a non bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner and in such circumstances, if the proceedings is not quashed, petitioner is likely to be arrested. When Annexure -IV petition is pending before the learned Magistrate, whereunder the de facto complainant sought permission to compound the offence, I do not believe that there is any reasonable cause for apprehension of arrest. Whatever it be, it is for the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in Annexure IV petition. If the disputes are Crl.M.C.430/2010 3 settled, there is no reason why leave to compound the offence is not to be allowed. Petition is disposed directing Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam to dispose the petition filed by the de facto complainant under sub section (2) of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to compound the offence. The Magistrate need not insist for the presence of the petitioner the accused to pass orders in the petition. When the offences are compoundable by the de facto complainant, presence of the accused is not a condition precedent for granting permission. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006