IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1221 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- [CC.NO.70/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ALUVA] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- C.K.JOSE, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. KURIAKOSE, CHIRAKALKUDIYIL HOUSE, WARD NO.XIX, ANGAMALI. BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SRI.MANU GOVIND. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. A.N.SASI, S/O. LATE NANU KUTTAN, AVANAMKODE HOUSE, WARD NO.XIX, ANGAMALI. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU, R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.VIJAYAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1221 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of May, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.1164 of 2007 of Angamaly Police Station for offence punishable under Sec.324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC”). Case is that petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to the second respondent. In the investigation, it was revealed that offence under Sec.326 of the IPC is involved and accordingly, final report was submitted. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva has taken cognizance of the said offence and filed C.C.No.70 of 2008. Now, pursuant to a settlement reached between petitioner and second respondent it is requested that proceeding against petitioner may be quashed. I have heard learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel submitted that boundary dispute arose between parties which has resulted in the alleged incident. Dispute regarding boundary was settled in W.P(C).No.18921 of 2009 of this Court. Annexure-A2 is the compromise filed in the said proceeding. In paragraph 5 it is stated that parties would take steps to get the proceeding in C.C.No.70 of 2008 also quashed. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to that agreement W.P(C).No.18921 of 2009 was disposed of settling the Crl.M.C.No.1221 of 2011 -: 2 :- boundary dispute. Now petitioner and second respondent have filed a joint petition (Crl.M.Appl.No.2839 of 2011). It is requested that permission may be granted to compound the offence. Learned counsel have confirmed the authenticity and genuineness of joint petition signed by the parties and their respective counsels. 3. Though, offence under Sec.326 of the IPC is not compoundable I am inclined to take into account the joint petition to grant the ultimate relief requested by petitioner. It is seen that the case arose from a boundary dispute which itself has settled as aforesaid. Now parties do not want to proceed further with the criminal case. Second respondent has expressed his intention in that line in the joint petition. Since the dispute is personal to and between petitioner and the second respondent and that dispute is settled I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.1164 of 2007 of Angamaly Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.70 of 2008 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-