IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1457 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- [CP.NO.124/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PUNALUR, CRIME NO.46/2007 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- RAJESH, S/O.GOPALAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR FOREST DEPOT, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MAMPAZHATHARA SALIM, S/O.MYTEEN KUNJU, VAHID BUILDINGS, EDAPPALAYAM, ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM, R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.SINOY. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.1457 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010. O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.P.No.124 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, now pending as L.P.No.67 of 2009. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the cognizance taken for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, contending that entire disputes were settled amicably with the injured second respondent evidenced by Annexure-III the joint petition filed by the second respondent injured and the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 SC), the case is to be quashed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008 (4) KLT 417), considered the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot's case and Crl.M.C No.1457 OF 2010 2 held that based on that principle, all the offences taken cognizance cannot be quashed and cognizance of an offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma's case the case cannot be quashed and the petition can only be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel thus submitted that as a non bailable warrant is pending, a direction may be issued to the Magistrate to consider the application to be moved on the date of surrender. When an accused surrenders and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass orders on the application without delay. I find no reason to believe that the Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this court or that the Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence no direction is warranted. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. mns