IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 943 of 2009()
1. RATNAKUMAR, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
2. LAKSHMI, PERUMBANAKUZHIYIL,
3. BALAKRISHNAN, KAPPIKKUNNU,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. KIZHAKKEDATHU RAGHAVAN, S/O.KESHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :24/03/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL.M.C. NO. 943 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009.
O R D E R
This petition is filed to quash all the proceedings in S.C.
175/08. It is seen from the averments that the defacto
complainant who is the father of the deceased is willing to
file an affidavit before the Court regarding the ailment of his
daughter. It is also submitted that the original records are
not available before Court. It has to be remembered that the
offence is of the year 1991 and I am informed by the
Prosecutor that it is to commence trial by tomorrow. When
the original is lost there are methods known to law whereby
secondary evidence can be admitted and the matter can be
proceeded with and if there are any legal obstacles the
parties can certainly raise that legal objection and that has
to be considered by the Court where the matter is pending.
But that does not mean that it is ground for quashing the
prosecution or to do away with the whole case. Further with
respect to the application of settlement in matters in Manoj
CRL.M.C. 943 OF 2009
-:2:-
Sharma’s case (Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT
417), in paragraph 23 one of the Hon’ble Judges of the
Supreme Court had made it very clear that there can be no
doubt that a case u/s 302 IPC or other serious offences like
those u/s 395 or 307 or 304(B) IPC cannot be compounded
and hence the prosecution in those provisions cannot be
quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power u/s 482
Cr.P.C. or in a writ jurisdiction on the basis a compromise.
The Apex Court had cautioned that “after all, a crime is an
offence against society, and not merely against a private
individual.” So the Apex Court of course had held in cases
that whether it is of a personal nature or whether it is in a
matrimonial dispute it can be encouraged to a limited extend
so that the harmonious relationship is not put at peril by
prosecuting a person. But here the offence involved is
S.304B. I do not propose to invoke jurisdiction u/s 482 to
quash the complaint on that basis. As stated by me earlier if
there are legal, tenable contentions it can all be raised at the
CRL.M.C. 943 OF 2009
-:3:-
stage of trial and the Court is bound to consider and pass
appropriate orders. I do not propose to interfere and quash
at this stage and therefore this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-