IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1597 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------ CC.1450/2002 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- P.R. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O. K. RAMAN MENON, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARASSERIL HOUSE, BRAHAMAMANGALAM P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MADHU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,. 2. P.S. AMMUNI, W/O. SREEDHARAN, PANACHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dkr M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =================== Crl.M.C. No. 1597 of 2009-D =================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and second respondent the defacto complainant in C.C.No.1450/2002 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420, 465, 471 and 477A of Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on Annexure A1 final report submitted under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that the dispute of the second respondent with petitioner was amicably settled out of court and second respondent has no further grievance against the petitioner and in such circumstances, there is no necessity to proceed with the case. Crl.M.C.No.1597/2009-D -2- 2. Second respondent appeared through a Counsel and also filed Crl.M.A.No.2658/2009 along with the petitioner for permission to compound the offences contending that their disputes were settled and second respondent has no further grievance against petitioner. Offences under Sections 465, 471 and 477A of Indian Penal Code are not compoudable. Therefore permission cannot be granted to compound the offence under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The joint petition filed by the petitioner and second respondent and the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for them establish that there was a settlement of all the disputes between the petitioner and second respondent. Annexure A1 final report also shows that the offences alleged are personal in respect of a chitty Crl.M.C.No.1597/2009-D -3- transaction conducted by the second respondent and the allegation is that a loss of Rs.49,070/- was caused to the second respondent. When the offences are personal in nature and the disputes were settled between the accused and the defacto complainant, no purpose will be served by directing further trial of the case as there is no chance of a successful prosecution. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case is to be quashed. 5. Crl.M.C. is allowed. C.C.No.1450/2002 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr