IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1383 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.1595/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: --------------------------- 1. SMITHA THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. THOMAS, NEYSSERI VEEDU, KADAYAPILLI ROAD, KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA. 2. CELINE THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, MOTHER OF 1ST PETITIONER, THOPPIL VEEDU, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.JOHNY SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PETER, S/O. JOSEPH, NEYSSERI HOUSE, KADAYAPPILLI ROAD, KADUNGALLOR, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI. M.S.BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.SUGUNAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.M.C. No. 1383 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008. O R D E R The petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No. 1595 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva for offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 IPC, seek to quash the proceedings against them before the Magistrate. Pending this Crl.M.C., the petitioners have filed Crl.M.A. No. 1918 of 2008 seeking permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 506(i) IPC which is the only compoundable offence in the case. The said petition is also signed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. It had been stated that the dispute between the parties have been settled amicably and the de facto complainant does not have any subsisting grievance in the case. The said application is allowed and the offence under Section 506(i) IPC is permitted to be compounded. It will have the effect of an acquittal of the petitioners of the offence punishable under section 506(i) IPC in view of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. CRL.M.C.NO. 1383/2008 : 2: 2. What now survives for consideration is the offence under Section 294(b) Cr.P.C. In as much as the exact word which was allegedly uttered by the petitioners to the 2nd respondent/complainant has not been mentioned, it is not possible to say whether the petitioners had caused annoyance to the complainant by calling him obscene words. Hence, the charge under Section 294(b) IPC also cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. Resultantly, the proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva in C.C.No. 1595 of 2005 shall stand quashed. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. Indiscernible V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.M.C.NO. 1383/2008 : 3: