IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1166 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.1118/2008 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, TRIPUNITHURA ........................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- JOSE GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, MANIYAMKOTTU, KAITHAKOTTIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMKULAM, IRUMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.K.P.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. BABY VARGHESE, S/O.CHUMMAR, PLACKIYIL HOUSE, KOLLAMPADY, THIRUVAMKULAM, IRUMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR NAMBIAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1166 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of June,2009 ORDER This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that the original of Annexure A2 petition was submitted before Sub Inspector of Police, Hill Palace Police Station, Tripunithura on 29.9.2008 within three days of furnishing the First Information Statement and when the dispute was settled with the second respondent the injured and the offence alleged against the petitioner is purely personal against the second respondent, in the interest of justice it is to be quashed. 2. Crl.M.A.1772/2009 is filed jointly by the petitioner and second respondent under section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to compound the offence stating that they have settled the dispute and second respondent has no intention to proceed with the trial. Second respondent is represented by a counsel. An offence under section 308 of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable and therefore Crl.M.C.1166/2009 2 permission cannot be granted to compound the offence as sought for. 3. The question is when the offence alleged against the petitioner is purely personal as the prosecution case is that he trespassed into the provisional store and inflicted injuries on the second respondent, when second respondent settled that dispute with the petitioner and expressed his unambiguous intention not to proceed with the case further whether the case is to be continued. I do not find that it is in the interest of justice to continue he proceedings as possibility of a successful prosecution is very bleak. Learned counsel made available copy of the wound certificate of second respondent, which only reveals only a lacerated wound on the right axilla apart from abrasion on the chest. In such circumstance petition is allowed. In the interest of justice C.P.2/2009 taken cognizance on Annexure I final report submitted in Crime 1118/2008 of Hill Palance Police Station is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006