IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4797 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.191/2005 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION C.C.121/2006 NOW NUMBERED AS L.P.75/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, KOZHIKODE. ..................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ MOHAMMADALI, AGED 37 S/O.MOYIN HAJI, KARIMBINGAL HOUSE, MONGAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN, SRI.S.K. SAJU. RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, 673 025, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. MOHAMMED BASHEER. M., S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, KAITHAPADAM HOUSE, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 025. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. R2 BY ADV. SMT.M. LISHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4797 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the second accused in C.C.No. 121/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Kozhikode, absconded when first accused was tried. Learned Magistrate, by Annexure-A3 order, permitted to compound the offences and acquitted the first accused. Case against the petitioner was removed to the register of long pending cases. It is now pending as L.P. No.75/2009. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent, the defacto complainant were settled amicably. An alternate relief is also sought for a direction to the learned Magistrate not to remand the petitioner and to release him on bail, if the case is not quashed. CRMC 4797/10 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Annexure-A3 order of the learned Magistrate shows that learned Magistrate has already permitted to compound the offences against the first accused. In such circumstances, I find no reasonable basis for the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that learned Magistrate will not permit compounding of the offences against the petitioner, for the reason that steps under Sections 82 and 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated. 4. If second respondent, who is competent to compound the offences, appear before the learned Magistrate and seek permission to compound the offences, learned Magistrate shall not insist for the presence of the petitioner. Petition is disposed. 8th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv