IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 687 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.240/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2: ------------------------------------- 1. NIKHITH ALIAS NIKHI, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, CHENKUTTY HOUSE, PUTHOOR VAYALA, KOTTAPPADY AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. SUJITH CHANDRAN ALIAS SUJITH, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, CHENKUTTY HOUSE, PUTHOOR VAYALA, KOTTAPPADY AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.V.VIJAYAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KARIKKAKAVIL HOUSE, PADINHARETHARA, 16TH MILE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. S.JACOB, S/O.SEBASTIAN, KOTTAPURATH HOUSE, MANAKKARAMURI, SASTHAMKOTTA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR FOR R2-3 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 687 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.240/08 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta. The said case relates to the offences punishable u/Ss.279, 341, 323, 294(b) and 332 IPC. The incident took place while the person was taking his family members to a hospital or so. There was altercation between the police and the party inside the car which had led to two criminal cases including interfering with the functioning of a public servant from his duty. Now it is submitted that the matter has been compounded and therefore in the light of the decision reported in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19) the proceedings have to be quashed. 2. In Madan Mohan Abbot's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case with respect to the offence u/s 406 IPC which was not compoundable. The Court CRL.M.C. NO. 687 OF 2009 -:2:- after elaborately considering the matter held that when the question involved is of a purely personal nature the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more cases. 3. In a later decision reported in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417), the Hon'ble Supreme Court again held that however the matter is amicably settled between the parties there can be a quashing and it was also a case where the offence involved was of a personal nature. In paragraph 23 the Apex Court cautioned that there can be no doubt that a case u/s 302 IPC or other serious offences like those u/Ss. 307, 395 or 304B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. CRL.M.C. NO. 687 OF 2009 -:3:- The Court also cautioned that “after all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual.” When a Government Servant is prevented from exercising his function in the official capacity and an offence is charged u/s 332 Cr.P.C. I am certain that it will not come within the ambit of a personal nature because it affects the system as a whole especially the functioning of law and order situation in the country. So as rightly pointed out by the Apex Court in such cases one has to hold that it is a crime done against the society which cannot be quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. So considering the facts and circumstances of this case since an offence u/s 332 is involved I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction u/s 482 to quash the criminal proceedings. Therefore the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-