IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2897 of 2008()
1. FAISAL, S/O.AMMED, AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ASHARAF, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 32 YEARS,
3. SAMEER, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 30 YEARS,
Vs
1. CHERUVAMBARATH HARIDASAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER
For Respondent :SRI.SUDHEESH.A.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.2897 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August 2008
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 and they, along with the
fourth accused faced indictment for an offence punishable under
Section 436 read with 34 I.P.C. Investigation was completed and
final report was filed. Cognizance was taken of the offences
punishable under Sections 457 and 435 read with 34 I.P.C. The
petitioners were not available for trial. The fourth accused, who
alone was available, faced trial. After trial, he was found not
guilty and acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kozhikode as per Annexure 1 judgment. The case against the
petitioners has been split up and refiled as C.C.No.270/2005.
The same is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate.
2. At this stage, the petitioners along with the first
respondent have come before this court to apprise this court of
the fact that the disputes between them have been settled and
compromised. The first respondent has compounded the
offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. The petitioners
as well as the first respondent pray that though the offences
alleged are not compoundable, the dictum in Madan Mohan
Crl.M.C.No.2897/08 2
Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287] may be
imported and the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be
invoked to bring to premature termination the surviving
prosecution against the petitioners. It is pointed out that even
before the court which rendered Annexure 1 judgment it was
very evident that the de facto complainant/first respondent has
no grievance surviving. Continuance of the prosecution against
the petitioners would be an empty and meaningless formality
and will result only in needless waste of the court’s time and
resources. The first respondent has settled the matter and the
dispute is one which is purely personal and private between the
first respondent and the petitioners. There is absolutely no
necessity to continue with the proceedings. Ground realities
may be taken into account. Insistence may not be made on
technicalities. Proceedings may be brought to premature
termination, it is prayed.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer for
premature termination of the proceedings against petitioners by
invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.2897/08 3
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am
satisfied from Annexure 6 affidavit filed by the first respondent,
from the averments made in the Crl.M.C and the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the
parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes.
There has been a genuine and voluntary settlement, I am
satisfied. If legally permissible and possible, I am satisfied that
premature termination of the proceedings can be brought about.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, according to me, is
correct in the reliance placed by him in the dictum in Madan
Mohan (Supra). This dispute, it is seen, is purely personal and
private between the parties. The accused persons had allegedly
entered into the premises of the first respondent and had
indulged in the alleged mischief and caused damage by fire to
properties kept in such premises. The first respondent has
compounded the offence and I am satisfied that the same can be
accepted.
5. It is submitted that the cases of the three petitioners
herein are pending before different courts bearing different
numbers consequent to certain mistake committed by the court.
Crl.M.C.No.2897/08 4
As against the first petitioner/first accused, the case is pending
before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode as S.C.No.318/2008. As
against the second petitioner/second accused proceedings are
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode
as C.C.No.251/2007. As against the third petitioner/third
accused the case is still pending as C.P.No.80/2003 before the
learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara. All
these cases are taken on the basis of a final report filed in crime
No.561/2000 of Vadakara police station.
6. In the result,
a) This Crl.M.C is allowed.
b) All further proceedings pending against the
petitioners in pursuance of final report in crime No.561/2000,
that is S.C.No.318/2008 pending before the Sessions Court
against the first accused; C.C.No.251/2007 pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode against the second
accused and C.P.No.80/2003 of the third accused pending before
the learned J.F.C.M, Vadakara are all hereby quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.2897/08 5
Crl.M.C.No.2897/08 6
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008