IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1174 of 2011 ---------------------------------- [C.C. NO. 180/09 (NOW PENDING AS LP.NO.13/2010) OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA, CRIME NO. 1162/09 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- JAMES KURIAKOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, VILANGATTUSERIL, ROBIN VILLA, CHERTHIPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION – 685 584. 3. BENNY PETER, S/O.PATHROSE, PAZHUMALAYIL VEETTIL, MRALA KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA – 685 584. 4. VIGI PETER, D/O.PATHROSE, PAZHUMALAYIL VEETTIL, MRALA KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA – 685 584. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1174 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.1162 of 2009 of Thodupuzha Police Station and C.C.No.180 of 2009 (L.P.No.13 of 2010) of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha for offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case as per the final report is that petitioner cheated respondents 3 and 4 with promise to arrange job for respondent No.4 abroad, collected money but did not arrange job. Petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are prepared and willing to compound the offence. Petitioner approached this Court with Crl.M.C.Nos.3925 of 2010 and 3926 of 2010 and this Court by Annexure-A5, order dated October 19, 2010 directed that if the defacto complainants approached learned Magistrate for permission to compound the offence, presence of petitioner for the said purpose need not be insisted upon. Learned counsel submitted that since respondent No.4 is abroad, she has executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No.3 authorising him to settle the case with petitioner. Annexure-A6 is the photocopy of that power of attorney. Grievance of petitioner is that for the purpose of compounding the offence learned Magistrate is insisting on physical presence of respondent No. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is seen from Annexure-A6 that in the power of attorney executed Crl.MC No.1174/2011 2 by respondent No.4, she has referred to the case on hand and has authorized respondent No.3 to settle and compromise the dispute between herself and petitioner as her attorney. Since respondent No.4 is abroad and she has executed power of attorney in favour of respondent No.3, presence of respondent No.4 for composition of offence need not be insisted upon so far as learned Magistrate has no reason to doubt genuineness of the power of attorney. Accordingly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of directing that in case respondent No.3 for himself and as power of attorney of respondent No.4 filed appropriate application for composition of the offence and produced the original power of attorney along with such application, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate need not insist upon physical presence of respondent No.4 unless learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has reason to doubt genuineness and authenticity of the power of attorney. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks