IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4283 of 2008()
1. SHRI.VIBEESH, AGED 30, S/O.VELU,
... Petitioner
2. SHRI.JEEVAN, AGED 21, S/O.FALGUNANA,
Vs
1. SMT.RADHA, AGED 56, W/O.SUKUMARAN,
... Respondent
2. SMT.MEENAKSHI AMMA, AGED 70,
3. SMT.ASWATHY VIKAS, AGED 24,
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :24/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.4283 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 and they face indictment in
a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section
294 (b) and 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C. All other offences are
legally compoundable. Investigation is complete. Final report
has already been filed. Altogether there are three victims in the
crime. They are respondents 1 to 3. Cognizance has been taken
on the basis of a final report filed by the police after due
investigation.
2. The petitioners along with respondents 1 to 3 have
now come before this Court to apprise this Court of the fact that
the parties have settled their disputes and respondents 1 to 3
have compounded the offences allegedly committed by the
petitioners. Though some of the offences alleged are not
compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C, the parties have
willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes. The
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C
may be invoked to bring to premature termination the
Crl.M.C. No.4283 of 2008 2
prosecution against the petitioners. It is prayed that the dictum
in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT
19], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769 (SC)] and
Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)] may be
invoked to terminate the unnecessary and irrelevant continuance
of the prosecution against the petitioners.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions submits
that the State is convinced that the matter has been settled. The
dispute is one which is private and personal between the parties.
The State has no objection against quashing of proceedings
against the petitioners and accepting composition.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs.
Respondents 1to 3 have entered appearance through counsel.
They have filed affidavit to confirm such settlement/composition.
I am satisfied that the dispute is private and personal between
the parties. I take note of the stand taken by the State. I take
note of the nature of the alleged offence. Having considered all
the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that this is an
eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan
Crl.M.C. No.4283 of 2008 3
Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I
and Manoj Sharma v. State (supra) can safely be invoked to
bring to premature termination the prosecution against the
petitioners.
5. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
ii) C.C.No.1207 of 2006 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thrissur wherein the petitioners
are the accused and respondents 1 to 3 are the
victims/complainants, is hereby quashed;
iii) Needless to say, proceedings, if any, under Section
446 Cr.P.C pending against the petitioners and their sureties
shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-