IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1599 of 2010() ----------------------- CRIME NO. 153 OF 2010 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2 ---------------------------- 1. ELDHO P.M., S/O.MATHAI, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, CHEMMANAD KARA, VARIKKOLI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ELDHO M.P., S/O.POULOSE, MALAYILPUTHENPURACKAL, VADAYAMPADI P.O., PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. JISHA RAJU, W/O.RAJU, PAPPANAL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MANEED VILLAGE, EZHAKKARANADU KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJU, S/O.JOSEPH, PAPPANAL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MANEED VILLAGE, EZHAKKARANADU KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.M.S. FOR R1,2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ........................................ Crl.M.C. No.1599 of 2010 ...................................... Dated: 18-5-2010 ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 153 of of Puthencruz Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 308 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. The matter is in the crime stage. According to the petitioners, the dispute have been settled between the parties who are neighbours. 2. A joint compromise petition has been filed by the petitioners and the injured to the said effect. Petitioners rely on the verdicts of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab -2008 (3) KLT 19 , Manoj Sharma v. State - (2008 (4) KLT 417) and Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. -2008 (3) LT 769 to contend for the position that even if the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 are not compoundable, this Court can invoke the power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to compound those Crl.M.C. No.1599 of 2010 -:2:- offences where the parties have settled the disputes between them. 3. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submission. All those decisions by the Apex Court were in respect of monetary disputes which were settled by the parties and the subject matter of those disputes were purely personal. It cannot be said that offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 308 read with Sec.34 I.P.C. are purely personal or founded on monetary disputes which can be settled between the parties. The petitioner, therefore, may either report the alleged compromise to the Investigating Officer for whatever it is worth or may try their fate during the trial of the case. With this observation this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No.1599 of 2010 -:3:-