IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 896 of 2011() ------------------------ ST.122/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMANGALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- DR.UMMER FEROOK, S/O.ALIKUNHI, ACQUARIL HOUSE, ERAYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, ERAYAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.H.RAFEEQ, S/O.ALI, RESIDING AT CHAKKA VEETTIL HOUSE, KELLOOR P.O., PORUNNANNOOR VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.896 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in Crime No.368 of 2009 of Medical College Police Station and S.T. No.122 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam for offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on account of negligence of petitioner who is a Medical Officer traction was fixed on the right leg of the first respondent instead of the left leg. Police investigated the case and submitted a final report. It is submitted that petitioner has settled the case with the de facto complainant, first respondent and hence requests that proceeding against him may be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for petitioner and first respondent have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for first respondent has also confirmed authenticity of Annexure-C, affidavit of petitioner where it is stated that it was under a mistaken impression that the incident occurred due to the negligence of petitioner. That he initiated legal action and later CRL.M.C. No.896 of 2011 -: 2 :- he realised that the action of petitioner was proper and for treatment traction had to be fixed on both legs. It is also stated that the case is settled. Petitioner has produced Annexure-B, Certificate from an Expert which states that applying skeletal traction is a minor procedure done under local anastesia usually one week prior to the definitive surgery to relieve muscle spasm and pain and that it is usual practice to give traction on both limbs to prevent pelvic tilting which enhances efficiency of traction system. 2. It is revealed from Annexure-C, affidavit of respondent No.1 that according to him he was under a misimpression of fact as to the alleged negligence of petitioner and he understood that for treating right leg traction was necessary on both legs. Since the matter is settled between the parties, the offence under Section 337 of the IPC is compoundable with permission of the court and in the light of Annexure-B, certificate of the Expert I am inclined to think that proceeding with the prosecution would not yield any result. In such a situation I am inclined to allow the petition. CRL.M.C. No.896 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.368 of 2009 of Medical College Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and all proceeding in S.T. No.122 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam against petitioner are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv