Mathew v. The State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015/2ND MAGHA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 68 of 2015 () ------------------------- CC 1670/2013 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,HOSDRUG CRIME NO. 385/2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT ============= PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
---------------------------------- MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.K.J. THOMAS, RESIDING AT MUNDIYANIKKAL HOUSE BATTATHUR, PANAYAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS/STATE:
---------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. K. JAYAN, S/O.K. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT CHAMAYAM HOUSE, THERVAYAL NILESHWAR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671314.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C.68/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.385/2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.385/2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2013 ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MEMO OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO.385/2013 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD
P. UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.68 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.1670/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. He seeks orders quashing the prosecution on the ground that during the investigation, the complainant had made a statement to the police that he does not want to prosecute the matter, and he has no grievance or complaint, but Ignoring this statement, the police submitted final report in court. The defacto complainant is the 2nd respondent herein. He remained absent in spite of notice. The only ground on which the petitioner seeks orders is that pending the investigation the defacto complainant had given a statement to the police that he does not want to prosecute the matter. But it is submitted from the side of the prosecution that later, the complainant deviated from his statement and wanted to prosecute the matter.
In such circumstance, the police submitted final report in court. I find that in the present circumstances where materials are there in the proceeding to constitute the offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, this Court cannot quash the prosecution.
Crl.M.C.No.68 of 2015 settlement between the parties, they can very well approach the trial court to have the offences compounded under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The offences are compoundable under the law. Hence, this petition is closed with observation that the parties will have to approach the trial court, if there is a settlement, under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Sd/- P. UBAID, JUDGE sd