IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2415 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.389/2009 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DIST. ................ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. NIYAS, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN KUTTY, PAYYAPPULLY HOUSE, MATHILMOOLA, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. NISHAF, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN KUTTY, PAYYAPPULLY HOUSE, MATHILMOOLA, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. NIZAR, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN KUTTY, PAYYAPPULLY HOUSE, MATHILMOOLA, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SANGEETH, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, PAMBINEZHATH HOUSE, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.K.ANIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2415 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.389/ 2009 of Mathilakam Police Station, now pending as C.P.No.59/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kodungallur. Second respondent is the defacto complainant, the injured, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioners. Prosecution case is that on 30.4.2009 at about 6 p.m., petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked and inflicted grievous hurt to the second respondent and thereby committed offences under Sections 308 and 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that the disputes between the petitioners and first respondent were subsequently settled and in such circumstances, it is not, in the interest of justice, to proceed with the case. CRMC 2415/09 2 It is contended that a divorce case with the first respondent and his wife was pending and consequent to the dispute, a petition was filed by the wife of the first respondent before Family Court claiming return of gold ornaments as well as maintenance and a suit was also filed for damages before Munsiff's Court, Kodungallur and the incident occurred when the proceedings were pending and subsequently, there was a complete settlement of the disputes between the parties and first respondent has pronounced Talaq and the cases pending before Family Court and Munsiff's Court were all withdrawn and in such circumstances, it is not, in the interest of justice, to continue the proceedings. 2. Crl.M.Appl.No.4110/2009 is jointly filed by the first respondent and petitioners seeking permission to compound the offences, stating that in view of the settlement of the disputes, first respondent has no grievance against the petitioners at present and so, the case is to be permitted to CRMC 2415/09 3 be compounded. As offences under Sections 308 and 326 of Indian Penal Code are not compoundable, permission cannot be granted to compound the offences. 3. But, when the disputes between the brother- in-laws were amicably settled, as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), it is not, in the interest of justice, to proceed with the case as there is no chance of a conviction consequent to the settlement. It would only result in waste of the valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. C.P.No.59/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kodungallur, taken cognizance on the final report submitted in Crime No.389/2009 of Mathilakam Police station, is quashed. 11th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv