IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1982 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.1363/07 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- SURESH KUMAR, S/O. KUNJUNNI, MULLAPPULLY HOUSE, THIRUTHIKKAD, PORKULAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KISHORE, S/O. ARAVINDAN, THANATTU VEETTIL, THIRUVONAM APARTMENTS, THANNIPAYYUR DESOM, VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1982 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is accused No.2 in a prosecution for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323 and 294(b) read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court along with the 2nd respondent who is the de facto complainant in this case to report to this court that the disputes between them have been settled. The 2nd respondent is represented by counsel. He confirms that the matter has been settled between the parties and the 2nd respondent has compounded the offences alleged against the petitioner. They did not go before the learned Magistrate with an application under Sec.320 of the Cr.P.C. and have instead come before this Court with a prayer under Crl.M.C. No.1982 of 2008 -: 2 :- Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. as the offence under Sec.294(b) of the IPC is not compoundable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if we go by the allegations in the FIR or the charge sheet, it cannot be concluded that any offence under Sec.294(b) of the IPC is made out. 3. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent does not accept the said contention; but submits that, at any rate, the 2nd respondent has no objection whatsoever against the quashing of the proceedings in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein. 4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor also, after taking instructions, confirms that the matter has been settled. It is further submitted that the State has no objection in this Court invoking the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 5. The offence under Sec.294(b) of the IPC is, of course, not compoundable. The learned counsel, in these circumstances, places reliance on the decision in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287) in support of their prayer that notwithstanding the fact that the offence is not compoundable, powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings. Crl.M.C. No.1982 of 2008 -: 3 :- 6. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. (b) Proceedings in C.C.No.2453/07 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge