IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 398 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.30/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S. AJITH (PARTNER UNIQ INFRO TECHNOLOGIES) 'GEETHANJALI', T.K. THARA, KODUVAYOOR POST, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, MR.MANU TOM. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S. DHANASREE CREDITS, INVESTMENTS & CURIES PVT LTD., R.S.NAIDU BUILDING, KUNATHOOR MEDU PALAKKAD, REPRESNTED BY ITS DIRECTOR K.VINOD KUMAR 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.T. KESAVAN, NOMBULLY HOUSE, NOMBULLY POST, KUZHALMANDHAM -678 702, PALAKKAD. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.B. PRAMOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.398 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the second accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 30/2008, now pending as L.P.No.74/2008, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palakkad, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-C complaint filed by the second respondent. This petition is filed to quash the cognizance taken contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably. Petitioner produced Annexure-B, a copy of the receipt for payment of Rs.65,000/- towards the full and final settlement of the case in C.C.No. 30/2008. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. An offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is compoundable under Section 320(2) of Code CRMC 398/10 2 of Criminal Procedure with the leave of the court. It is compoundable by the person who was cheated. When an offence is compoundable, it is not for this Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The person who was cheated is at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate to get leave of the court to compound the offence. 4. Learned counsel submitted that as a non bailable warrant is pending, learned Magistrate may insist for the presence of the petitioner. I find no reason for the Magistrate to insist for the presence of the accused, if there was a compounding of the offence and the offence is compoundable and it is established before the Magistrate that the offence is compounded. Petition is disposed. 2nd March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv