IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1690 of 2010() ----------------------------------------------- CRA.744/2008 OF ADDL. SESSION'S COURT, FAST TRACK (AD HOC-II), KOZHIKODE AND CC.385/2006 OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, (MARAD CASES) KOZHIKODE. .................................................................. REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MEHAROOF, S/O.RASHEED, ANUGRAHA HOUSE, VELLIPARAMBA, KUTTIKKATTOOR. 2. SHANAVAS, S/O.HASSAN HAJI, RAHMANIYA HOUSE, PANNIYANKARA, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE. 3. SHAFEEQUE, S/O.MOIDEENKOYA, CALICUT VEEDU, VAYYAMPOYIL, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.C.S.MANU MR.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. R2. SAFWAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.K.C.MUHAMMED, KUNNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL II RESPONDENT IN CRL.R.P, AS PER ORDER DATED 19.07.2010 IN CRL. M.A NO.5671/2010.) ADV. MR.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K. MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.1690 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Crl. M.A. No. 5671 of 2010 This is an application preferred by the revision petitioners to implead the defacto-complainant in C.C.No.385/2006 of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. The main reason stated by the counsel for the revision petitioners is that the matter has been settled out of court. The counsel appearing for the persons sought to be impleaded is not controverted above submission. Therefore, the petition is allowed impleading the additional respondents. Crl. M.A. No. 6064 of 2010 This is an application filed u/s.320 Cr.P.C, seeking permission of this court to compound the offences u/s. 341, 323 and 506(2) of I.P.C for which the revision petitioner is stand convicted and sentenced, the challenge against which is the subject matter of this revision petition. 2. In the above compounding petition, it is stated that the Crl. R.P. No.1690/2010 2 parties have amicably compromised and settled the dispute out of court and the additional respondent/ the defacto complainant has no further grievance and he do not want to prosecute the matter further. It is also stated that as the matter has been settled out of Court, the revision petitioner may be acquitted. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in the light of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties and as I am satisfied with the terms of the settlement, this petition is allowed permitting the contesting parties to compound the offences and accordingly the composition is recorded. Crl. R.P. No.1690/2010 The accused, in C.C.No.385/2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, (Marad Cases), Kozhikode and the Crl. AppealNo.744/2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track(Ad hoc- II) Kozhikode, preferred this revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence u/s. 341, 323 and 506 (2)of I.P.C. 2. While the revision petition is pending before this Court, the contesting party have settled the dispute out of court and Crl. R.P. No.1690/2010 3 accordingly they have filed a compounding petition in this court, which was allowed by this court today, by the order of Crl.M.A.No.6750/2010. In the light of the composition of the offences between the contesting parties which are recorded, the compounding of the offence will mount acquitted, by virtue to section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. In the result, this revision petition is allowed, setting aside the judgment of the courts below and acquitting the revision petitioners of all the charges levelled against them and they are set at liberty. Revision petition is allowed accordingly. V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE. SS/.