IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2354 of 2009(B) ------------------------- CCA.544/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- SAINUDHEEN,S/O.ALIYAR, KODOPPILLY HOUSE, KUNJUNNIKKARA, KADUGALLOR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. FATHIMA,W/O.YUSAPH, AGED 47 YEARS, AKATHOOT HOUSE, CHERUVELIL, KUNJUNNI KARA, KADUGALLOR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.E.ISMAIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: app/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No.2354 of 2009. ================== Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.544/2002. Under Annexure A1 judgment dated 20.7.2007, petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences under section 452, 354 and 506(ii) of IPC. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to dispose the Criminal Appeal 519/2007 pending before Sessions Court, Ernakulam filed challenging Annexure A1 judgment, in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Offences under sections 452 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code are not compoundable. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for second respondent and Public Prosecutor were heard. The learned counsel argued that though offences are not compoundable, in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and second respondent, to secure justice, the case is to be quashed. Annexure A2 affidavit of second respondent to establish settlement is also pressed in the service. Crl.M.C. No.2354 of 2009. 2 2. Though reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court, Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab (2008 (2) KHC 589), Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008(3) KLT 769 SC] and Manoj Sharma V. State [2008(4) KLT 417], those cases relate to quashing of the cases at a stage prior to the conviction. The case cannot be quashed following the said decisions when the accused is convicted, and appeal is pending. The principle to save the time of the court for trial as successful prosecution is not possible has no application as the appeal is pending before the Sessions Court. It is to be disposed on merits. While arguing the appeal, appellant is at liberty to bring to the notice of the Sessions Court, the factum of settlement. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE app/-