IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3099 of 2008()
1. SAI MOHAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. C.K.SHERRY, S/O.KUNJACHAN, TC 11/277,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
For Respondent :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3099 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of September 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 face indictment in a
prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 380 read
with 34 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final
report submitted by the police. The crux of the allegations
against the accused persons is that they, in furtherance of their
common intention, had stealthily removed a computer etc. from
the premises of a private limited company. The de facto
complainant is the second respondent who was one of the
directors of the Company. While the matter is pending before
the learned J.F.C.M-III, Thiruvananthapuram, the parties have
settled their disputes. The second respondent/ de facto
complainant has filed an affidavit also to report to the court that
the disputes have been settled.
2. The dispute basically arose from internecine quarrel
between the Directors and the employees. They have settled
their disputes. Though the offence under Section 380 Cr.P.C is
not legally compoundable, the learned counsel pray that invoking
the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C
as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of
Crl.M.C.No.3099/08 2
Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287] premature termination of
proceedings may be brought about. Ground realities may be
taken into account. Waste of judicial time may be avoided. It
may be noted that the dispute is one which is purely private and
personal between the contestants and no issue of public policy or
public interest is involved.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application.
4. It is confirmed that there has been bona fide and
genuine settlement of the disputes between the parties. I am
satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C, as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan
(Supra) can be pressed into service.
5. In the result,
a) This petition is allowed.
b) C.C No.377/05 pending before the learned Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram against
the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 is hereby quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3099/08 3
Crl.M.C.No.3099/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008