IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3141 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CC.39/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1. VASANTHAKUMAR, S/O.BHARGAVAN, AGED 31, THEYYATHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, NEAR TEMPLE, ELOOR VILLAGE. 2. MURUKAN, S/O.KOCHAPPAN, AGED 30 YEARS, MANALIPARAMBU HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM KARA, NEAR ELOOR FERRY, ELOOR VILLAGE. 3. SUDHEER, S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KALLEPADATH HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, NEAR PATTUPURACKAL TEMPLE, ELOOR VILLAGE. 4. SHIHAB,S/O.HAMMED, AGED 28 YEARS, VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, NEAR ELOOR DEPPO, ELOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1. M/S.V.R.WOODART LTD., METHANAM ROAD, UDYOGAMANDAL, NORTH ELOOR, COCHIN, REP.BY GENERAL MANAGER SMT.DEEPA HEGDE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU MARTIN FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3141 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and first respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 39/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, North Paravoor, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 447, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the compound of the first respondent Company and caused obstruction to their workers and also abused them by uttering obscene words and wrongfully restrained the Manager and thereby committed the offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that the entire disputes with the first respondent were settled and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue with the CRMC 3141/09 2 prosecution. Annexure-III affidavit of the first respondent is filed, wherein, first respondent has stated that the Company would like to withdraw the pending case in view of the settlement arrived at. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Crl.M.Appl.No.5391/2009 jointly by the petitioners under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to compound the offences. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, permission to compound the offences cannot be granted. 5. Annexure-III affidavit filed by the first respondent and the joint petition filed by the petitioners and first respondent establish that there was a complete settlement of the disputes CRMC 3141/09 3 with the first respondent. Annexure-I final report itself establishes that the offences alleged are personal in nature against the employees of the first respondent. In such circumstances, when the matter has been amicably settled and first respondent, the defacto complainant is not intending to proceed with the case, 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 continue with the prosecution. When, consequent to the settlement, chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak, it would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.39/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, North Paravoor as against the petitioners is quashed. 30th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv