IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 4082 of 2005() ------------------------- C.C.NO.685/2003 ON THE FILE OF J.F.C.M- I, NEYYATINKARA PETITIONER: ACCUSED ---------------------------------- 1. MADHU KUMAR, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, SANTHA BHAVAN, VAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SREEJITH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, R.V.COTTAGE, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, GANDHI NAGAR, HOUSING COLONY, VAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2005, THE COURT ON 31/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.4082 of 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioners who are the accused in C.C.No.685/2003 on the file of J.F.C.M-I, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 506(ii) read with 34 IPC, seek to quash the proceedings before the said Magistrate. 2. Pending this Crl.M.C, the petitioners and the injured- de facto complainant have filed a joint statement as Crl.M.A.No.623/2008, to the effect that the matter has been settled out of court between the parties and that the complainant is not desirous of proceeding further in this matter. They also prayed for accepting the joint statement and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.685/2003 referred to above. Such a joint statement can be treated as a compounding petition, so far as sections 323 and 447 read with Section 34 IPC are concerned, since both those offences are compoundable offences. But with regard to the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC, the Crl.M.C.No.4082 of 2005 2 same being a non compoundable offence, cannot be allowed to be compounded on the strength of some settlement said to have been arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, Cl.M.A.No.623/2008 is allowed by recording the composition with regard to the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 447 read with 34 IPC and it will have the effect of acquitting the petitioners of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 447 read with 34 IPC within the meaning of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. 3. What now survives for consideration is the offence punishable 506(ii) IPC. Even going by the allegations in the F.I.Statement, what is stated is that the 1st accused(1st petitioner herein) drew his pen knife and aiming towards the chest of the complainant, threatened him by uttering that he would finish him off. But the complainant has no case that on account of the above act of the 1st accused, he engendered a fear. Moreover, the statement proceeds further to say that in scuffle which ensued it was the 1st accused who sustained injury below his left ear with the pen knife referred to above. This is hardly sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC said Crl.M.C.No.4082 of 2005 3 to have been committed against the complainant. 4. Driving the petitioners to the trauma of a trial on such allegation would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Hence the allegation in Annexure I F.I.Statement, so far as it relates to Section 506(ii) IPC, is also unsustainable. When the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC is not at all made out even by accepting the allegations in the F.I.Statement and the final report, no useful purpose will be served by directing the petitioners undergo the ordeal of a trial. Accordingly, C.C.No.685/2003 on the file of J.F.C.M-I, Neyyattinkara shall stand quashed and the petitioners will stand discharged of the offences charged against them. This Crl.M.C is allowed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj