IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1144 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.35/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- P.K.SAJEEVAN,S/O. KUNHAN BHARGAVAN, PERUMALATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KEALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1144 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.35/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. On 26.8.2009 non bailable warrant was issued to CW1, the defacto complainant, as he was absent. Thereafter, the case stood posted to 14.10.2009. Petitioner was present on that day. Non bailable warrant was repeated against the defacto complainant and the case was posted to 26.10.2009. On that day, petitioner was absent and an application was filed on his behalf for exemption. Learned Magistrate repeated non bailable warrant against defacto complainant and posted the case to 6.2.2010. On that day, as there was no sitting, the case was adjourned to 23.2.2010. On that day, as petitioner was absent, learned Magistrate cancelled the bail and issued non bailable warrant against the petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the Magistrate to permit CRMC 1144/10 2 the petitioner to appear, so as to compound the offence contending that entire disputes with the defacto complainant were settled amicably and even though the offence is compounded, if petitioner appears, it is likely that he will be remanded. 2. When the offence under Section 138 is compoundable under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the complainant appears before the Magistrate and seeks permission to compound the offence, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to insist for the presence of the accused to grant permission to compound the offence. The offence could be compounded even in the absence of the accused at the instance of the complainant. When the offence is compoundable, learned Magistrate not to insist for the presence of the petitioner to grant permission. So also, even if petitioner is present, Magistrate not to remand him, if the offence is compounded. Petition is disposed accordingly. 6th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv