IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3261 of 2011() --------------------- CRIME NO. 460/2009 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ................ PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 : -------------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ @ SHAJI, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, AMBADI SADHANAM, ARCHAYIL DESOM, AGASTHYAKODU MURI, ANCHEL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. VINOD, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, AMBADI SADHANAM, ARCHAYIL DESOM, AGASTHYAKODU MURI, ANCHEL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS / STATE / COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANCHEL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 3261 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE - I : COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. 2185/09. ANNEXURE - II : COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING PETITION FILED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. 1 PUNALUR. ANNEXURE - III : COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW2 IN CC. 2185/09 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE JFCM COURT PUNALUR NO. 1. ANNEXURE - IV : COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PASSPORT OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM DATED 18.3.2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3261 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2185/2009 of J.F.C.M.-I, Punalur. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case and the counter case were actually settled between the parties. In this case though compounding petition was filed, CW2 could not sign the compounding petition as she was stated to be abroad. On going through the records, it is seen that it was CW2 who sustained fracture attracting the offence under Sec.326 IPC. Therefore, in the absence of CW2, the case cannot be disposed of as settled. 2. The learned counsel submits that the other case (counter case) has already been disposed of as settled, but only because CW2 could not examined this case could not be disposed of. The learned counsel further submits that Crl.M.C. No.3261 of 2011 -: 2 :- other two injured persons and also two other witnesses were already examined by the learned Magistrate who was then dealing with the case. Since there is no presiding officer in J.F.C.M.-I, Punalur, J.F.C.M.-II, Punalur is reported to be in charge of this case also. However, this case can be disposed of when CW2, the person who sustained fracture appears and gives statement before the learned Magistrate. Hence, this petition is disposed of with the following directions :- (i)J.F.C.M.-II, Punalur if he holds the charge of J.F.C.M.- I, Punalur will take up the case as and when CW2, the injured appears before the court for giving evidence and based on that statement, the learned Magistrate will dispose of the same. (ii)If CW2 gives a statement to the effect that the matter was settled and he has no grievance, then examination of other witnesses may not be required as it is stated that other witnesses did not support the Crl.M.C. No.3261 of 2011 -: 3 :- prosecution. (iii)If the accused persons wanted to have an earlier disposal, they can secure the presence of CW2 at the earliest. Since it was submitted that the counter case was settled and this case could not be disposed of only for the reasons mentioned above, the physical presence of the first accused need not be insisted upon. Of course, if CW2 speaks otherwise, the learned Magistrate can issue appropriate directions. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt