High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 05 KL CK 0017

C.K. Jose vs State of Kerala and A.N. Sasi

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 23 May 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Thomas P. Joseph, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.C. No. 1221 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 383 words

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner is accused in Crime No. 1164 of 2007 of Angamaly Police Station for offence punishable u/s 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 u/s 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 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 u/s 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.