IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4929 of 2010() ------------------------- LPC.30/2002 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR CRIME NO.114/1995 OF PAYANGADI POLICESTATION (KANNUR) .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- ACHUMMANTAKATH SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, PUTHIYANGADI, MADAI P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. BAYAN SIDDIQUE, S/O. MUSTHAFA, ATHIRTHY, MADAYI AMSOM AND DESOM P.O. PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.NISHIL.P.S. FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4929 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011. ORDER I had dictated judgment in this case on January 24, 2011. But before signing judgment I have again heard learned counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Judgment dictated on January 24, 2011 is recalled. This petition is being disposed of by this judgment. 2. Accused No.2 in Crime No.114 of 1995 of Payangadi Police Station (Kannur) and LPC No.30 of 2002 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur is the petitioner before me seeking to quash proceedings against him on the strength of Annexure-III, affidavit of the defacto complainant (respondent No.2) and Annexure-II, judgment acquitting accused Nos.1,3 and 4. Case is that on May 18, 1995 at about 8.15 p.m. while a public meeting was going on, petitioner and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 who belonged to another political party with the common intention to disturb the meeting pelted stones on the gathering, caused hurt to the defacto complainant (respondent No.2) and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”) and Section 2 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances to Public Meetings Act (for short, “the Act”). It is contended by learned counsel that Annexure-II, judgment would show that no Crl.M.C.No.4929/2010 2 offence was committed by accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and hence prosecution cannot bank upon under Section 34 of the Code. It is also contended that in the light of Annexure-III, affidavit prosecution of petitioner is only a wasteful exercise since respondent No.2 has settled the matter with the petitioner. It is requested that proceeding against petitioner may be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a compromise has been reached between petitioner and respondent No.2/defacto complainant. 3. Offence attributed to the petitioner is under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Code and Section 2 of the Act . That accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are acquitted by Annexure-II, judgment is not a justifiable reason to quash proceedings against petitioner for several reasons including that CWs 1 to 3 could not be examined in that case since they were abroad and other witnesses did not support the prosecution for some reason or other. Remaining witnesses were given up by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and that resulted in acquittal of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. That, some of the witnesses were not examined in the case against the other accused is a different matter. Hence on that ground proceedings against petitioner cannot be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.4929/2010 3 4. So far as request to quash the proceedings pursuant to Annexure- III, affidavit is concerned, learned counsel submitted that in view of settlement reached between the parties proceeding with the case is only a farce. It is pointed out that the matter is settled between parties. 5. So far as offence under Section 2 of the Act is concerned, I am not persuaded to think that it is a matter between petitioner and respondent No.2 personally, for, object of the Act is to prevent disturbances of public meeting. That cannot be said to be a matter between petitioner and respondent No.2. 6. Though a request is made to compound the offence under Section 324 of the Code I must bear in mind that it is by the alleged pelting of stones and allegedly injuring participants that the meeting was allegedly disturbed. Hence the offence of causing hurt along with offence under Section 2 of the Act. Offence under Section 2 of the Act is not made compoundable. In the circumstances, notwithstanding Annexure-III, affidavit where respondent No.3 has asserted that he has settled the matter with petitioner I am not inclined to invoke the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. At this stage, learned counsel requested that petitioner may be permitted to appear in the court below through counsel. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala and Crl.M.C.No.4929/2010 4 others (2011 (1) KHC 142) , it is not proper for this Court to issue any such direction. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to prefer application before the learned Magistrate as provided under law. If any such application is preferred learned Magistrate shall consider that application and pass appropriate orders having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Resultantly with the above observation this petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks