IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2129 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.283/2005 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- T.K.MAJEED, S/O. MOIDEENKUNJU, TANNIKUNDUMEL VEEDU, VALIYAPARAMBU, KODUVALLI. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.P.AYAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. MOYINKUTTY HAJI, VARALATTUPARAMBATH VEEDU, VAVAD AMSOM, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DIST. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.2129 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 1st day of July,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.283/2005 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta taken cognizance for the offence under section 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure 2 final report. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings for the reason that the dispute with the second respondent de facto complainant was settled and therefore the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Petitioner had earlier approached this court invoking the very same extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the very same case putting forth the very same settlement. Under Annexure VII order dated 19.2.2008 the prayer was rejected and petitioner was permitted to file a petition for discharge in absentia. This petition is filed for the same relief Crl.M.C.2129/2009 2 contending that there was a settlement and the complainant had filed Annexure VII application before the Magistrate which was not permitted and therefore the case is to be quashed. 4. When petitioner had earlier approached this court for the very same relief and it was not granted, he is not entitled to file another application under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the same relief. If this petition is to be allowed, it would amount to reviewing the earlier order. It is not permissible. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is because of change of circumstance as the Apex Court has now held that even noncompoundable offences could be quashed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if power of review is available an order or judgment cannot be reviewed on the ground of subsequent decision of the Apex Court. If aggrieved, petitioner has to challenge Annexure VII order before the Apex Court. Hence the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petitioner then submitted that Magistrate may be directed o grant bail to the petitioner when petitioner surrenders. 5. When petitioner surrenders and files an application before the Magistrate, Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application without delay. I find no reason Crl.M.C.2129/2009 3 to believe that the Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or that decisions of this court or the Apex Court or that Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. I find no reason to believe that if the facts as stated by the petitioner are brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, bail will not be granted. Hence no direction is warranted. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006