IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 877 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.37/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED -------------------------- JAYACHANDRAN,S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER, KUNNATHULLI HOUSE, PONALLUR, MANALUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. KAMALAKSHI, W/O. KARUPPAN, THAZHATHU HOUSE, PANDARAPARAMBIL, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, P.O., OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.877 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.37 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur. He, along with others are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 424 and 425 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case originated on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1 which was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the final report submitted by the Police (Annexure-A2). Case is that respondent No.1 borrowed certain amount from the petitioner and as security agreed to mortgage her property to the petitioner. But, instead of preparing mortgage deed petitioner prepared a sale deed as if the property is being conveyed to him, made respondent No.1 sign that document and later, petitioner transferred the property to the other accused persons. Learned counsel submitted that while so, parties have settled the dispute and accordingly Annexure-A3, compounding petition with the requisite permission for composition signed by petitioner/accused No.1 and respondent No.1 was submitted before learned Magistrate on 18.08.2010. But so far no order has been passed thereon. In the meantime, for the reason of absence of petitioner a non-bailable warrant was issued to him. Learned counsel seeks a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of Annexure-A3, compounding petition and in the meantime keep the warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner in abeyance. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Crl.MC No.877/2011 2 2. To compound offence it is not necessary that the petition has to be signed by the accused. Composition can be at the instance of complainant/defacto complainant alone. In this case the petition to compound the offence is signed, as the learned counsel submits by petitioner and respondent No.1. According to the learned counsel, offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code alone require permission of the court while other offences can be compounded even without permission of court. Learned counsel submitted that as part of the settlement other accused to whom petitioner had conveyed property have reconveyed the property in favour of respondent No.1. That is a matter which the learned Magistrate has to look into. 3. Having regard to the request made, I am inclined to grant the relief. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur to dispose of Annexure-A3, petition to compound the offences and for permission for such composition. Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance for a period of one month from this day or till learned Magistrate disposed of Annexure-A3, petition whichever is earlier. Counsel for petitioner can request the learned Magistrate to dispose of Annexure-A3, petition during the said period of one month. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks