IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4761 of 2008()
1. RESAK @ KUNHIMON, S/O.A.K.ALU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN,
... Respondent
2. GIREESAN @ GOPALAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN
3. SURENDRAN @ BABU, S/O.AYYAPPAN,
4. BALAN, NECHIKKADAN HOUSE, THRIKKALANGODE
5. VELAYUDHAN, VADAKKETHIL HOUSE
6. SUBRAMANIAN, KALATHIL HOUSE
7. HOUSHAD.E.K., ERLYKUZHIYIL HOUSE
8. AJAYAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN,
9. SREEDHARAN @ MAMAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN
10. THOTTATHIL HAMZA, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY
11. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/12/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 4761 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner, along with the co-accused, faced indictment
in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 448, 323 and 427 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The petitioner was arrayed
as the 6th accused in the final report. The petitioner was not
available for trial. The co-accused, who stood trial, were found
not guilty and acquitted as per Annex.A2 judgment. The case
against the petitioner was split up and re-filed. The same was
transferred to the list of long pending cases and is pending as
L.P. 76 of 2007 (C.C. 401 of 2000).
2. At this juncture the petitioner, along with respondents 1
to 10, who are the defacto complainants/victims, has come before
this Court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have
settled their disputes and respondents 1 to 10 have compounded
the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner. All other
substantive offences alleged are compoundable offences, but the
Crl.M.C.No. 4761 of 2008
2
offences under Sections 143, 147 and 148 I.P.C. are not legally
compoundable.
3. Respondents 1 to 10 have entered appearance through a
counsel. They, along with the petitioner, have filed a joint application
for composition. The counsel confirms that the disputes have been
settled.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 to 10
pray, the learned Prosecutor, after taking instructions, does not oppose
the said prayer and I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this
case that this is an eminently fit case where the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v.
State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I.
(2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT
417 (SC) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the
unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioner. I take
note of the fact that the dispute is one which is personal and private
between the accused and the victims and that no issues of public
interest or public justice are involved. I take note of the stand taken by
the learned Prosecutor also.
Crl.M.C.No. 4761 of 2008
3
4. In the result:
a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed.
b) L.P. 76 of 2007 (C.C.400 of 2000) pending before the
J.F.M.C.-II, Nilambur against the petitioner herein is hereby quashed.
c) The learned Magistrate shall make necessary entries in the
concerned registers to record such quashing/termination of
proceedings.
d) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if
any, pending against the petitioner and the sureties shall be disposed
of in accordance with law.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm