IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4721 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CC.624/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR CRIME NO.357/2002 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 & 4: -------------------------------------------------- 1. C.P. SAINUDEEN, S/O.MOITHEEN, AGED 29 YEARS, C.P.HOUSE, MATTOOL. 2. NOUSHAD, S/O.ALI.K.P., AGED 32 YEARS, PADINJARE MUKUVACHERY, MATTOOL. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CRIME NO.357 OF 2002 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4721 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners were accused 2 and 4 in C.C.No. 339/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur. As third accused alone appeared, the case against the other accused was split up and re-filed as C.C.No.25/2007. Subsequently, when first accused appeared, the case against original accused 2 and 4, petitioners herein, was split up and re-filed as C.C.No. 624/2009. First accused was tried and by Annexure- A1 judgment, he was acquitted. Petitioner did not appear before the Magistrate. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending against them contending that in view of the order of acquittal of accused 1 and 3, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. CRMC 4721/10 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public prosecutor were heard. 3. As held by the Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006(1) KLT 552), based on the judgment acquitting a co-accused, an absconding accused is not entitled to get the case against him quashed. Therefore, for the reason that accused 1 and 3 were acquitted after trial, petitioners, who were the absconding accused, are not entitled to get the case against them quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners then submitted that entire disputes with the injured were settled amicably and a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to permit compounding of the offences, in the absence of the petitioners, as the offences are compoundable. 5. Apart from the offences under Sections 143 and 147 of Indian Penal Code, which are not CRMC 4721/10 3 compoundable, the other offences are compoundable. In view of the order of acquittal of the two accused, an offence under Section 143 of Indian Penal Code will not be attracted. In such circumstances, if the persons, who are competent to compound the offences, approach the learned Magistrate seeking permission to compound the offences, Magistrate shall not to insist for the presence of the accused, to grant permission to compound the offences. Petition is disposed. 2nd December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv