IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2468 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- SC.NO.326/2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED @ KUNHIPPA, S/O.MUHAMMED @ BAPPU, AGED 62 YEARS, KANNIMEL VEEDU, NILAMBUR, MUTHUKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. UMMACHUKUTTY, W/O.RAYU, THAYYIL VEEDU, AGED 60 YEARS, MURIYANKANNI, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SHAREEFA, D/O.RAYU, AGED 36 YEARS, THAYYIL VEEDU, MURIYANKANNI, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. JAMEELA, D/O.RAYU, AGED 28, THAYYIL VEEDU, MURIYANKANNI, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AYISHA, W/O.MOHAMMED ALI, AGED 32 YEARS, THACHIL VEEDU, EDATHANATTUKARA, MANNARKKAD VIA., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE C.I. OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD IN CRIME NO.76/2003 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.N.ABHILASH, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. B. VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2468 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 12th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioners, the accused in S.C.326/2006 on the file of Sessions court, Palakkad filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that dispute is settled with the injured defacto complainant, first respondent. First respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed a joint statement under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to compound the offence. Offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code cannot be allowed to be quashed based on settlement. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that in view of the decision of the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) consequent to settlement of the dispute, when there is no chance of conviction, in the interest of justice the case is to be quashed. 2. As held by the Apex court in Manoj CRMC 2468/09 2 Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)) an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed invoking the decision in Madan Mohan's case (supra) accepting the settlement. Hence the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.