IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 9282 of 2002() ------------------------- CC.147/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- JOBY JOSE, S/O. JOSE, KONDODICKAL HOUOSE, CHAMPAKKARA DESOM, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 666 OF 2003 THE COURT ON 08/02/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.P.No.7202 /2002 in CRL.M.C.9282/2002 Dismissed. 8-2-2008 Sd/-V.K. Mohanan, Judge. V. K. Mohanan, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.9282/2002 & Crl.R.P.No.666/2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 O R D E R The above Crl.R.P. is filed challenging the order dated 27-2- 2003 in C.C.No.565/2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam and the Crl.M.C. is filed to quash Annexure-C final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.147/2002 on the file of the same court. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that though he had approached the court below for a joint trial of C.C.No.565/2002 along with C.C.No.147/2002, the court below dismissed his application stating that it was moved at a highly belated stage. 2. Since both the Crl.R.P. and Crl.M.C. arose from C.C.Nos.565/2002 and 147/2002, which the are case and counter case connected with the same incident, and the parties are same, both the cases are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. When the matter came up for consideration, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases submit that the matter has been settled out of court and the petitioners in both the cases may CRL.M.C.9282/02 & Con. case 2 be permitted to compound the offences alleged against them before the court below. 4. I have heard Sri. P.Vijaya Bhanu, larned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C., Sri.M.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in the revision petition and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, both the cases are disposed of in the following manner:- 6. Since the offences involved in C.C.No. 565 of 2002 are compoundable and the fact that the matter has been settled out of court, the offences alleged against the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.666/2003 can be compounded before the court below. Hence, the petitioner is directed to file a petition before the court below for compounding the offences. If such petition, as directed above, is filed, the court below shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law especially in the light of the above observations. The personal appearance of the accused in C.C.No.565/2002 is dispensed with and his counsel can file the compounding petition. As the matter has been settled out of court and as such there is no need to further proceedings in C.C.No.147/2002 of the court below, Annexure-C final report and CRL.M.C.9282/02 & Con. case 3 all further proceedings in C.C.No.147/2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam are quashed. The above Crl.M.C. and Crl.R.P. are disposed of as above. V. K. Mohanan, Judge. mn.