ELSY DEVASSY Vs. SHAJU JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were sureties of an accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced in that prosecution. Long later, during the pendency of a revision petition before this Court, the parties settled the said dispute and the offence was compounded. Accordingly the revision petition was allowed accepting the composition.

(2.) The petitioners have now come to this Court with a prayer that Annexures A and B warrants issued by the learned Magistrate against them in enforcement of an order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. may be quashed.

(3.) What is the reason? The only reason urged is that the criminal case, in which the accused faced indictment, has been compounded at the revisional stage. This by itself cannot help the petitioners to claim absolution from liability in proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. An order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. can be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have not chosen to challenge the order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. by filing a proper appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. They have not chosen even to produce the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 446 Cr.P.C. in this proceedings. The short ground on which quashing of Annexurs A and B, which are only subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of an order under Section 446 Cr.P.C., is sought is that there has been a composition. I am not at all persuaded to accept the said request.