IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 145 of 2011 -------------------------------- [C.C. NO.889/2004 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM] .............. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- GOPINATHAN.C., S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, YOGACHIRAYIL VEETTIL, PERUMBALAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU, SRI. KANNAN.S. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SURESH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O GOPALAN, PUTHANPURAYIL VEETTIL, PARATHOTTY, KADATHY. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR, R2 BY ADV. SMT.N.U.DEEPA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.145 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 25th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.889 of 2004 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam facing charge under Sec.336 of the Penal Code. Case is that on 07.03.2003 while respondent No.2, the de facto complainant who is a temporary lineman of the State Electricity Board (for short, "the Board”) was on work on the transformer and while was getting down from it, on account of negligence of petitioner who is an Engineer of the Board, respondent No.2 sustained injury and thus petitioner committed offence as alleged. It is submitted that the matter has been settled between petitioner and respondent No.2, de facto complainant who retired from the Board and has gone abroad. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has confirmed the fact of settlement and submitted that though the offence is cognizable and not compoundable it is bailable in nature punishable with imprisonment upto three months and/or with fine. Crl.M.C.No.145 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that collecting certain amount from the officers of the Board compensation was paid to respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also admits receipt of compensation. It is stated that the offence is purely personal between petitioner and respondent No.2, which I am unable to accept as it is. Charge against petitioner is one of negligence. However, having regard to the other relevant facts and circumstances stated, I am inclined to think that the settlement reached between petitioner and respondent No.2 should be accepted. The affidavit of respondent No.2 shows that he has settled the matter. Hence I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed and Annexure-A1, final report in Crime No.55 of 2003 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and all further proceedings in C.C.No.889 of 2004 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam against the petitioner are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-