IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 223 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5/1/2008 IN CMP 102/2008 IN CC.580/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------- ARUN KUMAR.V.P., S/O.KARUNAKARAN THALAPPIL, VANNADIL PUTHIYAVEETTIL, NEAR VELLUR SERVICE CO-OP.BANK, P.O.VELLUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MUHAMMED YASIN, S/O.SIDHIQUE.M., "AYISHA MANZIL", UDUMBUNTHALA, SOUTH TRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR,J. ========================= CRL.M.C.NO.223 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 8th day of February 2008 ORDER In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the second accused seeks to quash the final report as well as the FIR in Crime No.304/2006 of Payyannur Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC and also the subsequent proceedings initiated as C.C.580/2006 before the JFCM Payyannur. According to the petitioner, there is a settlement of the dispute between the de facto complainant and all the 5 accused persons, as evidenced by Annexure III affidavit and Annexure IV joint petition. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.7.2006 at about 11 p.m. the 5 accused persons criminally trespassed into the reception room of Madeena Tourist Home in Payyannur Amsom and the first accused assaulted the de facto complainant with a broken bottle and the rest of the accused beat him with bare hands and thereby committed the aforementioned offences. CRL.M.C.223/2008 2 3. Annexure IV is a joint petition signed by the de facto complainant as well as the 5 accused persons, in which it has been stated that the dispute between the parties have since been settled. This petition coupled with Annexure-III affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant can be treated as a petition for compounding the compoundable offences, namely, 323 and 324 IPC, but then Annexure-IV petition is intended to be filed before the JFCM, payyannur in C.C.580/2006. If the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 are permitted to be compounded and the accused are acquitted of the said offences by virtue of Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., then it goes without saying that the rest of the offences cannot survive, since it was allegedly for committing the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 that the criminal trespass and the formation of the unlawful assembly armed with broken bottle etc. were alleged. Since the second accused alone is before this Court and also since Annexure IV joint petition is not intended to be filed before this Court, it should be filed before the JFCM, Payyannur. This Crl.M.C. is disposed of permitting the petitioner to produce Annexure III affidavit and Annexure IV petition before the CRL.M.C.223/2008 3 Magistrate, who shall treat them as an application for compounding the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. Annexures-III and IV shall be returned to the petitioner to be filed before the JFCM, Payyannur. The learned Magistrate need not insist on the presence of the de facto complainant who is stated to be employed elsewhere. Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/