SUGUNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 1257/1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy. He was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that at about 7.45 a.m. on 24.4.98, the petitioner, due to previous enmity towards PW1, trespassed into the shop bearing No. KM -29/56 in the name and style of "O.V. Fancy", where the PW1 was working. After the trespass, the petitioner cut PW1 by means of a chopper over the head, right hand, right wrist and left leg causing grievous injuries to PW1, thus committing the offences charged against him. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exts. P1 to P7 documents as also MOs 1 to 3. The defence did not adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 1,000/ - was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. The sentence was directed to run concurrently. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 654/2003 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode Division . The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has settled the matter with PW1, the defacto complainant and has produced an affidavit sworn to by him along with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11672/2008. In the above circumstances, he prays that, invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court may quash proceedings against the petitioner, in view of the compromise reached between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. In the affidavit of PW1 filed before this Court along with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11672/2008, it is stated thus: