IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 909 of 2009() ----------------------------- SC.676/2007 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track-II) Kozhikode. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- JAFAR, S/O.MOOSA, MEPPALA HOUSE, MODERN BAZAR, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. MUHAMMED RIYAS, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 23/07 THUVAKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTH, VALIYAPARAMBA. 2. SHAMEER, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 24/09 MELEPARAKANDY HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTH, VALIYAPARAMBA. 3. RAHIM, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 25/09 PARAKKANDIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTH VALIYAPARAMBA. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. MEHABOOB, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, PUZHAMANNIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKOTH VALIYAPARAMBA. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R1 P.P. SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R5 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 909 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner who is the de facto complainant in S.C. No. 676/2007 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Kozhikode involving offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 308 read with section 34 IPC seeks to set aside the proceedings before the trial court on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably and that the composition of the offence may be recorded by exercising the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. In the light of the decisions reported in Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab ((2008)4 SCC 582) and Manoj and another V. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008 (4) KHC 392 (SC), in as much as the offence punishable under section 308 IPC is not compoundable offence, I find it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that it was a private dispute, which was settled amicably. The case has to be tried before the court below. In case any of the accused persons find it difficult to appear before the trial court due to the fact that he is employed in abroad, it is open to him to file appropriate petitions for exemption. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.