IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3548 of 2009() -------------------------------- C.P. NO.28/2009 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKUDY ......... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SHRI.VENU, S/O.SHANKUNNY, KUNDANI HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA DESOM & P.O., THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.M.R.DHANIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) -------------------------------- 1. SHRI.GEORGE, S/O.OUSEPH, CHERAYATH HOUSE, VELLIKULANGARA DESOM & P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DIST. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JOSEPH (THRISSUR) R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.3548 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 16th November 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.P.28/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 341 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with first respondent, the de facto complainant who is the injured were settled amicably and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Annexure-C affidavit to the effect that subsequent to the incident, entire disputes were settled amicably due to intervention of family members and friends and now petitioner and first respondent are neighbours and used to go to coolie work together and they are living cordially and in such circumstances, there is no objection for quashing the Crmc 3548/09 2 proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-B final report shows that prosecution case is that because of the previous enmity, with the intention to cause grievous hurt, petitioner wrongfully restrained first respondent on 21/12/2008 at about 9.30 a.m at Vellikulangara toddy shop and thereafter breaking a bottle and using the broken bottle, inflicted a grievous hurt on the chest and if no resistance offered at that time, it would have caused the death of first respondent and petitioner thereby committed offences under Sections 341 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the discharge certificate issued from Medical college, Thrissur. It establishes the very grievous nature of the injury. Question is whether such an offence is to be quashed by invoking the extra inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Position is covered by the decision of the Apex court in Manoj Sharma v. State Crmc 3548/09 3 (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)). All offences cannot be quashed accepting the settlement between the parties for the reason that offences are not compoundable. Offence under Sections 307 and 308 ordinarily cannot be allowed to be quashed accepting the settlement. Hence case cannot be quashed as sought for, Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.