IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1175 of 2009() ------------------------- SC.1112/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT ADHOC III, KOLLAM L.P.NO.1982/008 IN CP.68/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR. .................... (CRIME NO.348/2005 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): IST,2ND & 5TH ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJITH @ KUTTAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, CHIRAYIL THOTTAM VEEDU, KATTAKULAM, KOTTAPPURAM CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. KIRANNATH @ KIRAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAN, KOORAVILA VEEDU, KOORAVILA, KOTTAPPURAM CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. PRAMOD RAJ @ KUNJI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SOMARAJAN, KINATTUVILAKAM VEEDU, NEAR MOOLAKKADA JUNCTION, KAPPIL DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.BIMAL K.NATH, MR.S.JAMAL, MR.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUBASH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SIVANKUTTY, KATTAKULATHU VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM CHERRY, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. MR.R.SURAJ KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1175 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 3rd June 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1,2 and 5 in S.C.1112/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions court, Adhoc-III, Kollam and in L.P.198/2008 in C.P.68/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor in crime 348/2005 of Paravoor police station. Prosecution case is that all the accused committed offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the defacto complainant and the injured. Cognizance was taken on Annexure-A1 complaint. The case as against the accused, whose presence could be procured was committed and case as against the absconding accused were re-filed as L.P.198/2008. Contending that subsequently the dispute with second respondent has been settled and second respondent is not intending to prosecute the accused, this petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to CRMC 1175/09 2 quash the sessions cases and L.P case pending, as the offences are not compoundable under Section 320 of Indian Penal Code. Along with the petition, an affidavit of the second respondent in a non judicial stamp paper sworn before an attorney stating that the matter has been settled and he is not interested in proceeding with the case further was also filed. Second respondent has appeared through a counsel. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned counsel appearing for second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the settlement of the dispute between the petitioners and the injured no purpose will be served by undergoing the ordeal of a trial and when there is a peaceful and amicable settlement between the parties, though the offences are not compoundable invoking the power provided under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure the cases are to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex court in B.S.Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI (2008 (3) KHC 955)Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 CRMC 1175/09 3 (SC)) and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC). Learned counsel appearing for second respondent also supported the submission of the petitioners. 4. As declared by the Apex court in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) a serious offence like 302, 307 or 397 cannot be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. A criminal case can be quashed under Section 482 only, if this court is satisfied that in public interest or to secure interest of justice it is to be quashed. Considering the nature of the offence, the cases cannot be quashed as sought for. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.