IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18854 of 2009(Q) --------------------------------------------- CC.247/1997 of ADDL.C.J.M., ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: C.H.MUHAMMED @ KUNAJAN, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, WANDOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN: 679328. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: 1. G.ANGAMUTHU, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF M.SAJJANRAJ NAHAR, AUTOMOBILE FINANCIER, NO.277, MAIN ROAD, METTUPALAYAM, NOW RESIDING AT 7/1 PONVIZHA NAGAR, BEHIND METRO SCHOOL, METTUPALAYAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, WANDOOR, MALAPURAM DIST. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18854 of 2009 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No. 247/1997 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. As petitioner was absconding, the case was included in the long pending register after Sections 82 and 83 steps were taken. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash Exhibit P1 complaint, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and also to quash Exhibit P3 proclamation issued by Magistrate and to drop the proceedings initiated by sending Exhibit P4 notice. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that there was settlement of the disputes with the complainant and Exhibit P5 petition was filed before Magistrate for withdrawing the complaint and learned Magistrate WPC 18854/09 2 was not justified in taking Sections 82 and 83 steps or proceeding against the property of the petitioner by issuing Exhibit P4 notice. 4. If the case of the petitioner is that there was settlement of the dispute with the first respondent/complainant, as offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code is compoundable, petitioner has to approach the Magistrate for permission to compound the offence, along with the complainant, by filing petition under sub-section (2) of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is not known on what basis Exhibit P4 notice was issued. If it is issued for realisation of the penalty as directed in the order passed under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure, remedy of the petitioner is to challenge that order in appeal and not to approach this Court by filing writ petition. With liberty to the petitioner to seek permission to compound the offence and to file an appeal against the order passed under Section 446 WPC 18854/09 3 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petition is dismissed. 6th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv