Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945 CRIME NO.186/2011 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 246/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VARKALA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: JOSHI JOHNY AGED 42 YEARS S/O. JOHNY, JOHNY BHAVAN, MAMPILLY, ANCHUTHENGU DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695306 BY ADVS. SHERRY J. THOMAS JOEMON ANTONY ANTONY NILTON REMELO RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 PONNAYYAN S/O. ARULAPPAN NADAR, KUNNUPURATHU HOUSE, VLATHANKARA, MACHIYODE, CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695132 OTHER PRESENT: SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
======================= Crl.M.C. No.150 of 2024 ======================= Dated this the 10th day of January, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.186 of 2011 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, now pending as C.C No.246 of 2022 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. According to the prosecution, the defacto
complainant, who is the Secretary of the Panchayat, was wrongfully restrained by accused Nos.1 and 2, since he refused to give a copy of the minutes and thereby, the accused committed the offences alleged.
3. Sri. Sherry J. Thomas, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that, the case against the 1st accused was compounded by order dated 08.11.2016 and the benefit of such compounding ought to be extended to the petitioner as well. She further submitted that, by virtue of compounding of the offences as against the 1st accused, Section 34 of the IPC ..3.. cannot be attracted as well, and on that basis the case is required to be quashed. It was further pointed out that, in any event, the 2nd respondent is willing to settle the matter and therefore, the proceedings in the trial court ought to be quashed.
4. I have heard Sri. Noushad K.A., learned Public Prosecutor as well.
5. The prosecution allegation is that, the Panchayat
Secretary was restrained by the President of the Panchayat as well as a Ward member on 28.03.2011. The case as against the President of the Panchayat, who was arrayed as the 1 st accused was compounded as evident from Annexure-A3 order. However, the case against the petitioner, who was a Ward member was not compounded, which indicates that the 2nd respondent intended to proceed against the petitioner.
6. Though the case against the 1st accused has been
compounded, the same by itself cannot wipe away the offence under Section 342 of the IPC. Of course whether Section 34 of IPC would be applicable due to the compounding is a matter to be considered after trial. The allegations in the final report indicates the commission of an offence, at least, prima facie, ..4.. whether any offence is proved or not is a matter to be decided after evidence is adduced. Considering the fact that, the crime is of the year 2011 and till date, no settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, it is not proper for this Court to issue notice to enquire whether the 2nd respondent is willing to settle the matter or not.
Therefore, I find no merit in this Criminal M.C.,and it is dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE LU ..5.. APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 150/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR, DATED 31-03-2011 IN CRIME NO. 186/2011 ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 8-7-2011 IN FIR NO 186/2011 ANNEXURE A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-11-2016 IN CC NO. 642/2011 ACQUITTING THE 1ST ACCUSED // True Copy // PA To Judge