IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2384 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.1912/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PRAVEEN,AGED 30, S/O.SIVADASAN NAIR, PUTHENVEETTIL, KADAVANTHRA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THANKACHAN, AGED 36, S/O. JACOB, KUTHUKADU VEETTIL, KADAVANTHRA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 55, S/O.NARAYANA MENON, EZHUTHULLIL VEETTIL, KADAVANTHRA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KRALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. NARAYANI AMMA, AGED 67, W/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, "KRISHNA VIHAR" MUTTATH LANE, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU ADV. SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2384 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 ORDER Petitioners who are the accused in Crime No.125/2004 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 447, 506(1) & 435 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II, Ernakulam as C.C.No.1912/2004 seek to quash the proceedings on the ground that the matter has since been settled between de facto complainant injured and the petitioner. 2. Since the offence punishable under Section 435 I.P.C. is not compoundable, the ratio in Madan Mohan Vs. State of Punjab cannot be applied for want of existence of any money dispute which is purely personal between the parties. Hence the remedy of the petitioner is to plead for a discharge in case the charge has not been framed. I am inclined to permit the petitioner to plead for a discharge in absentia and thereafter to face trial also in absentia in case charge is framed. 3. Accordingly this Criminal M.C. is disposed of Crl.M.C.No.2384/2010 : 2 : permitting the petitioners to plead for a discharge in absentia by filing a petition through their counsel. In that case the petitioners shall also be entitled to submit before the Magistrate that the matter has been settled between the parties. This benefit is given notwithstanding the pendancy of the non-bailable warrants against the petitioners. 4. In case the Magistrate frames charge in the case they will be entitled to apply for personal exemption during trial and the same shall be considered favourbaly by the Magistrate. This Criminal M.C. is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj