Shakkeeb vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 65 of 2009()


1. SHAKKEEB,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ASAD, S/O.RAZACK, KOLATHAKKATT,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHEKEELA, D/O.M.K.BABU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :13/01/2009

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Crl.M.C.No. 65 of 2009
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009

                               O R D E R

The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 313 I.P.C.

Altogether there were five accused persons. Cognizance has

been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police

after due investigation. Three of the five co-accused have

already been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. As the

petitioners were not available, the case against them was split up

and refiled.

2. At this juncture, the petitioners and the second

respondent have come before this Court to apprise this court of

the fact that the parties have already settled all their outstanding

disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences

allegedly committed by the petitioners. Annex.B is the judgment

of acquittal in favour of the co-accused. That judgment also

reveals that there has been a settlement/composition.

Crl.M.C.No. 65 of 2009
2

3. The second respondent has entered appearance through

counsel and has filed an affidavit duly attested by the counsel to

confirm that the parties have settled their disputes and the offences

allegedly committed by the petitioners have been compounded by the

second respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent

pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am

satisfied that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction as enabled by the

dictum in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386)

can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the

unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution surviving against the

petitioners.

4. In the result:

a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed.

b) C.P. No. 111 of 2006, pending before the Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Chavakkad against the petitioners, in which the

second respondent is the defacto complainant, is hereby quashed.

Crl.M.C.No. 65 of 2009
3

c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if

any, pending against the petitioners and the sureties shall be disposed

of in accordance with law.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm