Kerala High Court
Mr.Aboobacker vs Abdul Khader on 21 December, 2010
Author: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4029 of 2010()
1. MR.ABOOBACKER, AGED 36 YEARS (A3),
... Petitioner
2. JAMSHEED, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS (A4),
Vs
1. ABDUL KHADER, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. M.A.ABDULLA, S/O.ABDUL KHADER HAJI,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent :SRI.SIJU MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4029 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are accused 3 and 4 in C.P.No. 129/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasargod, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 436 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A2 final report. Prosecution case is that due to previous enmity, at about 1.30 a.m. on 30.12.2005, petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, with accused 1 and 2, set fire to Shop No.KMC XIII/41, where second respondent is conducting trade and caused a loss of Rs.25,000/- and thereby committed the offence. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings against the petitioners contending that they have settled the entire disputes with respondents 1 and 2 and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to CRMC 4029/10 2 continue the prosecution.
2. First respondent is the defacto complainant and owner of the shop and second respondent, an eye witness. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through a counsel. They jointly filed Crl.M.Appl.No.6251/2010 along with the petitioners seeking permission to compound the offence contending that respondents 1 and 2 have settled all the disputes with the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
4. An offence under Section 436 of Indian Penal Code is not a compoundable offence. Hence, permission cannot be granted to compound the offence. But, when the joint petition filed by respondents 1 and 2, the defacto complainant and the eye witness, along with the petitioners, establishes that petitioners have settled all the disputes with respondents 1 and 2, it is not in the CRMC 4029/10 3 interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), as there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. Proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.P.No.129/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod is quashed.
21st December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv