K U ETTOOP Vs. M K KUNHIKANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 440/2004, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 341 and 506(ii) I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash Annexure-II complaint filed by the first respondent, the complainant, against them.

(2.) The interesting brief facts are that the petitioners, two Advocates of Thalassery Bar, are alleged to have wrongfully restrained the first respondent, also an Advocate of the same Bar, and criminally intimidated him, by threatening that if the first respondent continued to harass the second accused, he would not walk on his two legs. The 3rd accused in Annexure-II complaint also threatened the first respondent. Hence, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate and that had been forwarded to the Thalassery police, which, after investigation, referred the same, and issued Annexure-I refer notice to the first respondent. It was thereafter that Annexure-II complaint has been preferred before the Court below.

(3.) During the pendency of this petition, the parties have settled the matter among themselves. Counsel for the petitioners filed Crl.M.A. No. 2930/2005 stating that they have settled the matter among themselves, and as the first respondent-complainant is "completely laid up and not in a position to appear before the Court in person to file the compounding petition", he requested the Advocate appearing for the petitioners to take steps to get the case quashed, as he did not want to proceed with the case. The said letter has been produced as Annexure-VII along with Crl.M.A.