IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 13TH MAY 2011 / 23RD VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1039 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.85/2011 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION. ..... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 ----------------------------------------------- BIJU MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 33 YEARS, CHENGANNOOR VILAYIL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA NORTH.P.O., KULANADA, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHASHIKUMAR, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI (LATE), AGED 45, VALLIYATHAN VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, PANAGADU, KAIPPUZHA MURI, KULANADA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. Q. BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Crl.M.C. No. 1039 of 2011 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 13th day of May, 2011 O R D E R This is a petition filed by the first accused in Crime No.85/2011 of Pandalam Police Station under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-A1 F.I.R. and all further proceedings against him in pursuant thereto. 2. The allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that he along with other accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, assaulted the de facto complainant causing hurt to him and also attempted to kill him and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 308,341, 323 read with section 149 IPC. 3. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in this case and that now the matter has been settled between himself and de facto complainant, who is the first respondent in this petition, and that therefore Annexure-A1 FIR and all further proceedings against the Crl.M.C. No.1039/2011 2 petitioner pursuant thereto may be quashed. The petitioner has produced an affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant/first respondent to the effect that the matter has been settled between the parties. 4. The offences under sections 143, 147, 148 and 308, read with section 149 IPC are not compoundable. Hence permission cannot be granted for compounding the said offences. Permission is granted to compound offences punishable under sections 323 and 341 IPC and those offences are compounded. The de facto complainant has field a statement to the effect that he has no objection in quashing Annexure-A1 F.I.R. registered against the petitioner. The counsel Mr.Sreejith S.R. appears for the first respondent/de facto complainant. He has submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties. As the matter has been settled between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case pending. 5. The Apex Court has held in B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003(2) KLT 1062 (SC)) that though the offences Crl.M.C. No.1039/2011 3 alleged against the petitioner were non-compoundable and if the parties had settled the matter and it was not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, the entire proceedings can be quashed, exercising the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The principles laid down in the above decision are followed by this Court in Biju Eappen V. State of Kerala (2010(1) KLT 289). In the present case the dispute between the parties is of personal nature and no public safety is involved. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, I feel that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed and Annexure- A1 F.I.R. in Crime No.85/2011 of Pandalam Police Station and all proceedings connected therewith are hereby quashed. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.