IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2414 of 2009() ------------------------------------ SC.1661/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- AHAMMED HUSSAIN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, MALAYINKEEZHU. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AMBILI, S/O.ISSAC, AGED 33 YEARS, KIZHAKKINKARA THADATHARIKATHU, MAIPARAMBIL VEEDU, KALLAMAM, PANNIYODE P.O., NEDUMANGADU. 3. VIJAYA KUMAR, POLICE CONSTABLE, C.I.SQUAD, KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, KATTAKADA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.B. VINOD. R2 BY ADV. MR.M.R.SARIN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2414 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the first accused and third respondent, the second accused in S.C.No.1661/2006 on the file of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, taken cognizance on Annexure-2 complaint filed alleging that the accused committed offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x), xiv(2)(ii) and (vii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that the disputes between the accused and second respondent were subsequently amicably settled and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel. Second respondent originally filed an affidavit dated 30.6.2009 stating that consequent to the settlement arrived at, he has no objection to quash the case as against the petitioner. Subsequently, another affidavit dated 27.7.2009 is filed stating that case as against the third respondent/second accused was also settled and in such circumstances, the entire case could be CRMC 2414/09 2 quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Case has been taken cognizance by the Magistrate on a private complaint filed by the second respondent alleging offences both under Indian Penal Code and SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Offences under Indian Penal Code are compoundable. But, offences under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not compoundable. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when the matter is settled between the complainant and accused and there is no reasonable chance of a conviction, it is not, in the interest of justice, to proceed with the case and waste the valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. S.C. No.1661/2006 on the file of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as against the accused is quashed. 11th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv