IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 425 of 2009() ------------------------ SC.547/2007 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPPALAM AND CRIME NO.18/2007 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------- SHIBU @ SHAFEEQ, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, PULLANICKAL VEEDU, PILATHARA, POST CHUNANGAD, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: --------------- 1. MR. RASHEED, S/O. ABOOBACKER AGED 24 YEARS, PUTHEN PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE SRK NAGAR, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.425 OF 2009 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.547/2007 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam. It is submitted that the matter has been compounded. As per the various decisions of the Apex Court, it is argued that the case on hand is a fit case where the proceedings have to be quashed. One of the offences involved in this case is under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. It is a very serious case and there are allegations in this case that a knife was used for the crime. It is averred that unless the injured had withdrawn from the scene, he could have been killed in the incident. In the decision reported in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)), in paragraph 23 of the judgment, one of the learned Single Judges of the Apex Court cautioned that there can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 of IPC or other serious offences like those under CRL.M.C.425/09 2 Sections 395, 307 or 304B may not be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercising of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. The court also reminded that “After all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual”. So, deriving strength from the observations of the learned Single Judge, I feel that this is a fit case where this Court should not use its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. to quash the proceedings. The petitioner can move the Court, where the matter is pending, for exemption of personal appearance in the day today proceedings till the date of trial, and if possible, the trial may be done as expeditiously as possible so that there will be a finality to the whole proceedings. This Criminal M.C. is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE prp CRL.M.C.425/09 3 J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 6th November, 2008