IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2068 of 2008()
1. KUNHABDULLA, S/O.KUNHAMMAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :21/08/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008
ORDER
The petitioner is the 2nd accused and he, along with two
others, faced indictment for the offence punishable under
Sec.436 read with Sec.34 IPC. The co-accused have already
been tried, found not guilty and acquitted. The petitioner was
not available for trial. The case against him was split up.
The same is now pending before the Assistant Sessions Court,
Vadakara, as S.C.NO.1132/06. At this stage, the petitioner,
along with the de facto complainant, has come before this
Court. He points out that the co-accused having already been
acquitted, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the
surviving prosecution against the petitioner. It is by now trite,
after the decision in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006
(1) KLT 552), that the acquittal of a co-accused is by itself no
Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008 -: 2 :-
sufficient reason to justify the invocation of the extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. An absconding co-
accused cannot be held to be entitled for any benefit or
advantage on account of the judgment of acquittal rendered by
the court in favour of the co-accused on the basis of an evidence
in the prosecution against the co-accused.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that
in this case the parties have already settled their disputes. The
2nd respondent is the de facto complainant and the 3rd
respondent – his father, is the person whose building was
allegedly set fire to. The petitioner is the nephew of the 3rd
respondent. A purely private dispute had led to the alleged
crime and the allegations being raised against the petitioner.
The parties have willingly and voluntarily settled their disputes.
3. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a joint affidavit to
confirm that they have settled their disputes with the petitioner.
Both respondents 2 and 3 are represented by a counsel and the
counsel confirms that the parties have settled their purely
personal dispute and respondents 2 and 3 have no surviving
Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008 -: 3 :-
grievance against the petitioner. Taking the totality of
circumstances into account and invoking the dictum in Madhan
Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287), the
surviving prosecution against the petitioner in S.C.No.1132/06
may be quashed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C., it is prayed.
4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The
learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, confirms
that the disputes have been settled between the parties. The
State has no objection against the quashing of proceedings
invoking the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot. The dispute is
one which is purely private and personal between the parties, no
public policy or public interest is involved. In these
circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the
powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in
Madhan Mohan Abbot can be invoked notwithstanding the
fact that the offence alleged is a non-compoundable offence.
5. In the result:
(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.
(b) S.C.NO.1132/06 pending before the Assistant Sessions
Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008 -: 4 :-
Court, Vadakara, against the petitioner herein is hereby
quashed.
(c) The proceedings under Sec.446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending
against the petitioner or his sureties shall be disposed of in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
Crl.M.C. No. 2068 of 2008 -: 5 :-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/