IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5085 of 2010 --------------------------------------- CC.410/2010 of JFCM-III, THRISSUR ........ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: 1. BICKLAK, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.JOY, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. 2. SUNITH, AGED 22 YEARS, VALIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE,DO. DO. 3. RAHUL,AGED 19 YEARS,S/O.UDAYAN, THEKKINIYEDATH KUNDIYIL HOUSE, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1. VIJAYAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, KORATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SHO, OLLUR POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.5085 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and first respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 410/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thrissur, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 448 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A2 final report. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the first respondent, the defacto complainant, who is the injured, were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and along with the petitioners filed Crl.M.Appl. No.8296/2010 for compounding the offences stating CRMC 5085/10 2 that entire disputes with the petitioners were settled amicably and therefore, he does not wish to proceed with the case further and hence, the case is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. An offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable and hence, permission to compound the offence, as sought for, cannot be granted. 5. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when the offences alleged against the petitioners are purely personal in nature and first respondent has settled all the disputes amicably with the petitioners and first respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Except the offence under Section 324 of Indian CRMC 5085/10 3 Penal Code, all the other offences are compoundable. 6. Prosecution case is that in furtherance of the common intention, all the petitioners, on 6.6.2010 at about 11.30 p.m., trespassed into the veranda of the residential house of the first respondent and wrongfully restrained him and inflicted injuries on him by beating with an iron pipe and thereby committed the offences. Offences alleged are purely personal in nature. The compounding petition filed by the first respondent with the petitioners establishes that they have settled all the disputes. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.410/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court- III, Thrissur is quashed. 6th January, 2011 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv