IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 190 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.849/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------- P.DEVARAJAN, S/O.PONNAYYAN, DEPUTY HEADMASTER, M.V.H.S.S., ARIYALLOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): STATE & GUARDIAN OF ALLEGED VICTIM -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL NAZAR, THEKKAKATH HOUSE, PUTHEN KADAPPURAM, PARAPPANANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676303. ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV SMT M K PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.190 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 16th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the Deputy Head Master of a Higher Secondary School at Ariyalloor and faces trial for offences punishable under secs.354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.849 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi. Prosecution case is that on 29.06.2010 he voluntarily caused hurt and misbehaved to the daughter of the second respondent who then was a student of the 9th standard of that school. When the alleged incident occurred the daughter of second respondent was attending examination conducted in the school. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on various grounds including that the allegations are false. 2. I have heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner, counsel for second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that the matter has already been settled with the second respondent, the guardian and father of the victim. It is also submitted that the Crl.M.C.No.190 of 2011 -: 2 :- witness for the prosecution were ready to appear before the learned Magistrate and give evidence that the complaint was given on a mistaken impression but the learned Magistrate was of the view that the provision of Act 4 of 2006 applied and hence the case was adjourned to 30.03.2011. Learned counsel for second respondent has confirmed settlement with the petitioner in his capacity as guardian of the victim. 4. Sec.320(4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables a person competent to contract on behalf of a person under the age of 18 or who is an idiot or lunatic and hence not competent to enter into a contract. In the present case compromise is reached between petitioner and the second respondent (guardian and father of the victim). I have gone through Annexure-D, statement signed by the second respondent and others the authenticity of which is admitted by learned counsel for second respondent. In Annexure-D, it is stated that the school authorities, second respondent and others meet on 07.07.2010 in the school and in that meeting all the disputes were sorted out and it was decided that steps shall be taken to close the pending case against petitioner. Crl.M.C.No.190 of 2011 -: 3 :- 5. Annexure-D can be taken as the petition filed by the second respondent to compound the offence. I have also gone through the allegations made against petitioner as regards the alleged incident. Having regard to the nature of allegations made as well as Annexure-D, statement I am inclined to think that since the parties have settled the matter it is not necessary to continue the proceeding. Resultantly this petition is allowed, Annexure-B, final report in Crime No.224 of 2010 of Parappanangadi Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.849 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-