IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1427 of 2009(E) ----------------------------------- CMP.6538/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- SATHEESAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 58 YEARS, ARUN NIVAS, KONDOOR KARA, ARUVITHURA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA. 2. SHARIKA, D/O. SUGATHAN, PUNNAKKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR THIDANADU TEMPLE, KONDOOR VILLAGE, (MINOR), REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER SRI. SUGATHAN, PUNNAKKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR THIDANADU TEMPLE, KONDOOR VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. R2 BY. SRI.SAJU JOHN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =================== Crl.M.C. No. 1427 of 2009-E =================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.421/2008 of Erattupetta Police Station. When the case is under investigation, second respondent, defacto complainant filed CMP No.6538/2008 for permission to compound the offence. Under Annexure A5 order, after recording the statement of second respondent and the Police Constable, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to grant permission to compound the offence after quashing Annexure A5 order. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Prosecution case is that petitioner committed an offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that second respondent was a student of Newman Tutorial College, where petitioner is working as a Crl.M.C.No.1427/2009-E -2- teacher and on 26-11-2008 when second respondent was leaving the class, petitioner embraced her and thereby outraged her modesty. In Annexure A2 petition second respondent stating that she had settled the dispute with the petitioner sought permission to compound the offence. Annexure A3 statement of the second respondent recorded by the learned Magistrate shows that even after filing Annexure A2 petition, second respondent, the victim asserted that petitioner committed the offence as alleged not once, but repeatedly on several occasions and she alone was not the victim as he was misbehaving to the other students also. The only reason shown for granting permission to compound the offence was her apprehension that it will affect her future. In the light of the statement of the victim, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure A5 order. Though an offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code is compoundable, it can compounded only with the leave of the Court. From the nature and circumstances of the case, learned Magistrate is justified in not grating the leave. Petition is dismissed. Crl.M.C.No.1427/2009-E -3- 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Annexure A5 order was passed without hearing the petitioner and therefore the observations in Annexure A5 cannot be used against the petitioner. Learned Magistrate to dispose the case untrammeled by the observations in Annexure A5 order. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr